Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Royal Ulster Constabulary

Mr. Julian Brazier: If he will make a statement on the future of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. [145474]

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Mandelson): The men and women of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and those acting in their support provide an excellent service to the people of Northern Ireland, as recent successes against terrorism demonstrate. I know that the police service will continue to do so as the changes arising from the Patten report are implemented. I should like to add on a personal basis that they are embracing those changes with typical resilience and professionalism. It has been my great privilege to support them, including their Chief Constable, in their valiant work.

Mr. Brazier: In view of the deadlock in the negotiations and the uncertain—to say the least—security position, will the Secretary of State, as his last official action in the Chamber, do a little more to lift the shadow from that brave, impartial and disciplined service still known as the Royal Ulster Constabulary?

Mr. Mandelson: The Government's aim throughout this process is to develop a modern police service in Northern Ireland that is both effective and representative of the community it serves, and that commands the widespread support and confidence that it needs to do its job effectively. The changes being implemented will, in the Government's view, achieve that. The Government have made it clear that they are committed to the radical vision expressed by Patten, which, in our view, will contribute as much, if not more than anything else, to long-term peace and stability for all the people in Northern Ireland.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: May I say to my right hon. Friend that very many people in both communities in Northern Ireland will view his statement today with deep dismay and regret? He has

always given of his best in ensuring the interests of the people of both communities in Northern Ireland and he will be sorely missed.
On the issue of police reform, may I tell my right hon. Friend that I for one have every trust in the sheer professionalism of Ronnie Flanagan and his senior officers in implementing the necessary reform? In him and Commissioner Pat Byrne we have two very high-ranking and extremely competent police officers who will do their best to take forward the peace process.

Mr. Mandelson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his generous remarks. What no one should underestimate is the radical transformation that is already under way in policing in Northern Ireland. The Patten report is no longer just theory; it is becoming a daily reality. With the police ombudsman in place, the oversight commissioner at work, new district commanders appointed, the district command structure being put in place, a new recruitment agency to recruit new recruits to the Police Service of Northern Ireland almost in place, the severance scheme and the restructuring of headquarters, many changes are taking place now. That is why we have to resolve any remaining political difficulties and continue firmly with the tasks that we have set ourselves in bringing about the much-needed changes in policing in Northern Ireland.

Mr. David Trimble: May I first thank the Secretary of State for all the work that he has done in Northern Ireland in the past year or so, and tell him that many people appreciate the efforts that he has made? I say that although, as he knows, there are various issues on which we have disagreed, particularly policing. The proposals particularly to change the name of the RUC and the failure to recognise the service and the sacrifice of RUC members have caused very deep hurt within the community as a whole. Furthermore, the effectiveness of the police force is being undermined by the continuing uncertainty about particular aspects of policing.
Does the Secretary of State therefore agree that the sooner we have a closure on the issue the better; and that that requires nationalists themselves now to take up their responsibility for society, as has been implicit in the agreement and in everything that it contained? Has not the time long since passed for nationalists to take their responsibilities and to support the police service, so that it can continue the honourable traditions of the RUC?

Mr. Mandelson: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his initial generous remarks.
The Government are conscious, and I have been only too conscious, that some of the changes are painful for some people in Northern Ireland. I can say firmly and sincerely that the sacrifices that have been made by the RUC will never be forgotten. The award of the George Cross to the RUC by Her Majesty the Queen is a fitting tribute, as will be the creation of the RUC GC Foundation in the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000.
I echo the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. It is incumbent on all sections of society to move forward in support of the police service and to encourage young men


and women right across the community, in both traditions, to become part of this unique opportunity for policing in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Tony McWalter: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the Royal Ulster Constabulary has never sought to block the tremendous efforts that he and others have made to achieve a more inclusive police service in Northern Ireland? Will he also accept my congratulations on the tremendous work that he has done with and for the police, to ensure that the goal of a more inclusive force will one day be realised?

Mr. Mandelson: Certainly, one of the Government's proudest achievements—one of my own personal proudest achievements has been the contribution that I made in introducing it—has been the passage of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, which is leading to the creation of the new police service. The process of establishing the new service has begun and must continue. One cannot stop such a transformation in midstream. To do so would leave the police in Northern Ireland in limbo, with all the implications that that entails.
We must press on, but to do so wholly successfully requires the support and active participation of the political and community representatives of both traditions. If we can secure that, it will be the most signal step forward in the transformation of Northern Ireland from the era of war and terrorism to the era of peace that it wishes now to embrace.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Does the Secretary of State accept that his was the right decision—indeed, the only tenable decision—in the circumstances? As he leaves office, will he acknowledge that the police reforms are in real danger of being all pain and no gain, especially if the Irish Government, the SDLP and Sinn Fein continue to refuse to recommend to young Catholic men and women that they join the new police force?

Mr. Mandelson: The greatest, most important gain to be secured from this process of change and this new beginning in policing that we are seeking to create is the development of a police service that wins the trust and respect of both sides, allowing the police to operate effectively right across the community and to tackle crime at its root, with the active support of both sides of the community rather than with the hostility or the sullen acquiescence that we have seen in the past, allowing the RUC to transform itself from the counter-terrorist organisation that it has been into the community-based, partnership-based police service that we want for the future.

Decommissioning

Mr. Eric Forth: When he expects decommissioning of illegally held arms and explosives in Northern Ireland to begin. [145475]

Rev. Martin Smyth: What undertakings by the Government remain to be fulfilled to enable verifiable total disarmament of terrorist weaponry. [145480]

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): Efforts are still continuing to seek a way forward to enable decommissioning to occur as soon as possible. For our part, the Government have met all our commitments, and continue to meet our commitments to take the steps necessary for full implementation of the agreement by June 2001.

Mr. Forth: For how much longer are Ministers going to fool themselves and, what is worse, the British people, over decommissioning? For how much longer are they going to allow illegal weapons and substances to exist and be held in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Ingram: We have not given up—it seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman has perhaps given up—on the process. That is not what the people of Northern Ireland want. They want all the efforts made over recent days, months and years, by this and previous Administrations, to succeed. This is a difficult process. We hope that, with the encouragement of everyone with good will, we can take it to a satisfactory conclusion.

Rev. Martin Smyth: The Minister's optimism is understandable, but does not he agree that the hope may be false, especially when senior people in the paramilitary organisations are reported in the media as saying that there will be no decommissioning? The people of Northern Ireland are ware of that, after the recent attacks on Ebrington barracks and Claudy police station. Is it possible that we have been listening to our own spin, and that the republicans have rumbled us?

Mr. Ingram: The recent attacks to which the hon. Gentleman refers have been attributed to the dissident republican movement, the Real IRA, as was yesterday's attack on Ebrington barracks. It is a matter not of believing spin but of looking at the hard reality and trying to find answers. No one said the task would be easy or without risks attached. That is the reality that we are dealing with. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will know the mood in his constituency, which is for peace and for the removal of the past from Northern Ireland.

Dr. Nick Palmer: Does my right hon. Friend accept that those of us with a particular interest in Northern Ireland, and especially those who belong to the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, will greet with regret this morning's announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State? However, will he make it clear to the parties in Northern Ireland that they should redouble their efforts to achieve faster progress on all sides, and not use the Secretary of State's resignation as an excuse for further delay?

Mr. Ingram: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind comments about the sterling efforts and work of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The Select Committee has played an important role in exposing and examining a range of issues, and in helping the process in which we are involved. We need to move forward on the basis that the Government have set out but, more importantly, on the


basis set out in the Good Friday agreement. That is what the people of Northern Ireland hold to and what they want to have delivered. We are determined to achieve that.

Fiona Mactaggart: In view of the statement of the independent decommissioning commission that it is possible to achieve decommissioning by June 2001, does my right hon. Friend share my anxiety that the constant harping of the Conservative party makes the process more difficult?

Mr. Ingram: I am not sure that I share my hon. Friend's anxiety about that: I am tempted to use a different word to describe my response, but perhaps I should not use it today. I have said before, from this Dispatch Box, that the weakness in the Opposition's position is that they claim to be part of a bipartisan approach but constantly seek to question every dot and comma of what the Government seek to do. The Labour party in opposition gave the previous Conservative Government support when the going was tough, and Conservative Members should do the same now.

Mr. Robert McCartney: Will the Minister confirm that, during the negotiations that led to the Belfast agreement, the Government's position was that it was a twin-track process, and that decommissioning would be delivered when a political agreement was delivered? Two and half years on will he confirm that not a single ounce of Semtex or a single bullet has been delivered by Sinn Fein-IRA?

Mr. Ingram: Of course I can confirm that. That is why my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have redoubled their efforts over recent days to move the process forward. I recognise that the hon. and learned Gentleman wants what I want for Northern Ireland, and that is a peaceful settlement. He comes at the problem from a direction that is different from mine, but I know that he shares that objective. I think that he should give encouragement to the process and put some hope into it, because—and I repeat the point—that is what most people in his constituency and in Northern Ireland want. They want peace, and no more violence.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: The Minister will be aware that it is widely believed that political pressure is being put on the armed forces to move towards demilitarisation in Northern Ireland in return for perhaps at last some movement on decommissioning. Does he accept that this would be highly dangerous and that Ministers will be responsible if such changes in security lead to loss of life?

Mr. Ingram: I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman has not learned any lessons from his past experience serving as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. No political pressure is put on our security advisers. We take their advice. It is a process of consultation; it is considering all of the options that are open to us. We have said time and again that we take the best security advice available before we move. The advice that we receive is first class and we have always responded to it.

Security Situation

Mr. Stephen O'Brien: If he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland. [145476]

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): The main paramilitary groups are maintaining their ceasefires; however, there remains a continued threat from dissident paramilitaries, as evidenced by recent attacks on the security forces at Cookstown, the recent bombs discovered in South Armagh and Claudy, and yesterday's mortar attack on Ebrington. These are serious developments. However, the security forces are ready and capable of dealing with these threats, and they deserve our highest praise for all their brave efforts.

Mr. O'Brien: In the light of those two incidents, and in the absence of any real decommissioning in Northern Ireland, is it not wholly inappropriate and undesirable for so-called demilitarisation even to be considered at this stage, let alone progress?

Mr. Ingram: I think that I recounted more than two incidents. The hon. Gentleman should look at my answer. There have been too many incidents in recent days and recent weeks. This is a very serious development, but the security forces are ready to tackle it. It is not a case of demilitarisation, as the hon. Gentleman avers; it is a question of seeking normalisation within Northern Ireland. It must be part of a sequenced process. It is what all of the talks have been about, and it is what our current efforts in seeking a resolution of this very difficult impasse are about.

Mr. Andy King: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the recent incidents in north Belfast, Coleraine, Cookstown and Armagh prove yet again that certain individuals in Northern Ireland are intent on wrecking the peace process and are by their very actions undermining the best wishes of the overwhelming majority of the people of Northern Ireland; that their actions are a threat to democracy itself; and that we in this House must give the Ministers in Northern Ireland every possible support in achieving a lasting peace for Northern Ireland?

Mr. Ingram: I agree wholeheartedly with that assessment. What those dissident factions are doing, and what the so-called loyalist paramilitary groups are doing by carrying out their sectarian attacks on innocent Catholics, is to make a serious attempt to undermine the peace process. That is their objective. We are determined that they will not succeed, and I hope that the whole House will support every effort that is being made at present by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and others, including the security forces, which are showing their determination, to achieve the objective set out in the Good Friday agreement.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does the Minister agree that there can be no satisfactory security situation until there is a meaningful handing in of weapons and explosives? Is not decommissioning the longest-running political soap of all time? Does the right


hon. Gentleman accept that the people of Northern Ireland as a whole want decommissioning? When will he set a meaningful timetable to achieve it?

Mr. Ingram: It would be too nice to call that a rant. There was not one word of a solution in that question. The hon. Gentleman has been a Member of this House for many long years. He will know that this issue is not easily resolved. Decommissioning is a voluntary process, and it must be done on the basis of reaching agreement. The Good Friday agreement itself is very clear on what the objective is: it is the removal of all illegally held weapons. That is what the present Government seek, and it is what previous Governments sought. Hopefully, we shall achieve it.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Has not the Secretary of State's regrettable and impending resignation indicated how vulnerable we all are when the press decide that they a want a politician's head on a platter? [Interruption.] Can I express the hope that those same editors who have called for my right hon. Friend's resignation will now turn their attention to writing articles congratulating him on the work that he did in Northern Ireland to resolve the problems of conflict?

Mr. Ingram: I do not know whether my hon. Friend takes time to read The Irish News, the Belfast Telegraph or the News Letter, but if he has had the opportunity to do so over recent days, he will have seen the balanced and constructive way in which those newspapers have approached the issue of police reform with regard to the current talks. I hope that other parts of our media will respond to the very positive, constructive approach adopted by the newspapers in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: May I record our appreciation for the contribution that the Secretary of State has made to the Province? In sometimes difficult times, we believe that his work has brought peace closer and for that, the House and the Province are in his debt.
What is the likely impact of the impending general election on normalisation and the peace process, given that Northern Ireland parties are evidently beginning to gear up for it? It could be predicted that that might cause some obstacles in the momentum of the process.

Mr. Ingram: The important thing is to focus on the task at hand and not to be distracted by extraneous influences. That is the way in which the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have been approaching this in recent days as well as over a longer period. The hon. Gentleman will be only too conscious of the sterling efforts made by the political parties in Northern Ireland in those discussions. I think that they are focused on what they are seeking to achieve, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will support them in that.

Mr. William Ross: Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in condemning the atrocious pipe-bomb attacks that have been taking place with such frequency throughout Northern Ireland? Will he confirm the degree of sophistication in the recent major bomb attacks that were launched on the security forces? Will he also confirm that the security forces were so able to deal with the situation in Claudy, that while they found the

hoax bomb that the IRA planted at the front gate, they did not find the real one which had been planted at the back gate until the IRA rang up and told them to start looking for it again? Does that not indicate that there should be no further diminution in the capacity of the security forces to seek out intelligence, which would mean keeping the towers in South Armagh, and enough troops and police on the ground to secure the people of Northern Ireland?

Mr. Ingram: The Chief Constable has, in recent days, indicated through attribution who planted those devices, and has also said that they are very sophisticated. We are dealing with a very determined, nasty and evil force that knows what its objectives are. With regard to the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question about removal of intelligence-gathering means and the security profile, we have said that that must always be part of the discussions between the parties and those who have illegally held weapons. It is about seeking the removal of all illegally held weapons in Northern Ireland, and normalisation can proceed apace on the back of that.

Mr. John M. Taylor: How can anyone claim that the security situation or the peace process are holding when so-called "punishment beatings" are on the increase and becoming more severe? Are there not some parts of the Province that are practically unpoliced, despite the valour of the RUC?

Mr. Ingram: I would not say that parts of Northern Ireland are "unpoliced", but parts are difficult to police because of an unwillingness by certain parts of the community, for whatever reason, to co-operate with the police. That is one reason why the Good Friday agreement highlighted the importance of a different policing approach for Northern Ireland, on the back of all the other things in that agreement. Reform of the RUC is about achieving that type of acceptable policing service throughout Northern Ireland. That requires the co-operation of the community just as much as other changes mentioned in the Patten report that the Government put forward in the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 and are now seeking to implement.

Dr. William McCrea: In the light of the serious attacks mentioned by the Minister—multiple murder bids on members of the security forces—and while it has been claimed that dissident members of the republican movement are responsible, no one can hide behind the reality that such actions could not have been taken without at least the compliance of the Provisional IRA. The weaponry of the Provos—Semtex, bombs and guns—have been used in the hands of republicans. Is it not time for a proactive security initiative against those dissidents and republicans, to allow a real peace process that all the people of Northern Ireland can enjoy?

Mr. Ingram: The assertions at the heart of the hon. Gentleman's question are not borne out by the assessments of the Chief Constable and our security advisers. I would rather trust their judgment than that of the hon. Gentleman.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Mr. William Cash: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 24 January.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): As the House is well aware, I had a meeting this morning with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who has since announced his decision to resign from the Government later today. I would like to pay the warmest possible tribute to him for the tireless efforts he has made to secure peace in Northern Ireland—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and also for his personal courage and sense of duty in coming to the House this afternoon to answer questions on Northern Ireland before departing the Government.

Mr. Cash: Will the Prime Minister take the opportunity of this Question Time to spell out the truth to the House of Commons and to the country regarding the events surrounding the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland?

The Prime Minister: I accept that the reply of the Secretary of State, through his office, to inquiries from a newspaper at the weekend was misleading and resulted in the House of Commons and the Lobby being misled—and I accepted his resignation on that basis.
On the information presently available to me, I believe that the application for naturalisation of the individual in question was decided in accordance with the proper criteria—and so does the Home Secretary. None the less, I have asked Sir Anthony Hammond QC, former Treasury Solicitor, to review the case fully so that we can be sure that the application was dealt with properly in all respects. Sir Anthony will report his findings to me and we will publish them.

Mr. Andrew Dismore: Will my right hon. Friend join me in recognising the immense contribution of many individuals and organisations in the preparations for national holocaust memorial day—the first of which will take place this Saturday, 27 January? On that day, we can remember all the victims of the holocaust, learn the lessons of the holocaust for today's society, and stand together to confront racism, anti-semitism and intolerance, wherever they may occur.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

The Prime Minister: I entirely agree. National holocaust day is an important innovation, which I hope and believe has the support of all right hon. and hon. Members. It will allow us to commemorate dreadful acts of racism—particularly those in the 20th century—and serve as a reminder to young people in particular that the events of the second world war and the racial genocide that was exhibited then should never be repeated in humankind.

Mr. William Hague: I agree with the Prime Minister's sentiments about national holocaust

day, when we will join together across parties to remember the terrible events of which the right hon. Gentleman has spoken.
Now that the Prime Minister has notched up the historic achievement of being forced to sack the same Minister for the same offence twice in 25 months, does he recognise that his career-long dependency on the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) has been a monumental error of judgment?

The Prime Minister: I do not suppose that I ever expected the right hon. Gentleman to behave graciously at all on the resignation of my right hon. Friend, but I say to the right hon. Gentleman and to the House that I believe that the job done by my right hon. Friend in Northern Ireland well merited his position as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I think he has made an enormous contribution to it; indeed, it is not an exaggeration to say that I doubt whether the process in Northern Ireland would have been sustained so well but for his commitment. I therefore believe it was right that he occupied that position, and I also believe that he is a bigger man than many of his critics.

Mr. Hague: The fact is that to reappoint in September 1999 a disgraced Minister 10 months after he was forced to resign, in breach of every convention and precedent, was a demonstration of the arrogance with which the Prime Minister wields his power. To spare himself and the country going through this a third time, will the Prime Minister now guarantee that his right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool will not be running the election campaign of the Labour party and will not return to office in any Government led by him?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend has already made that clear in the statement that he gave earlier. I simply say to the right hon. Gentleman that I think my right hon. Friend has done the right thing; I think that he has done the honourable thing. It is a long tradition in this House that when someone does that, we pay tribute to it. I am only sorry that once again the Leader of the Opposition has lived down to my expectations.

Mr. Hague: The right hon. Member for Hartlepool has done the right thing, but it is a pity that the Prime Minister's judgment led him to have to do it twice within the space of one Parliament. Does this not go wider than the matter of the right hon. Gentleman, because he has been central to everything that the Prime Minister has done? It was the right hon. Gentleman who picked the Prime Minister out; the right hon. Gentleman who briefed the press for him; the right hon. Gentleman who stabbed the Chancellor in the back for him; the right hon. Gentleman who spun all of his campaigns for him. Is not the fact that the right hon. Gentleman's statement sadly could not be relied upon the reason not only that he has had to go, but that he has been at the heart of the entire new Labour project?

The Prime Minister: I think the Leader of the Opposition probably wrote most of that before my right hon. Friend resigned; he just forgot to change the script. I repeat that I believe it was right that my right hon. Friend came back into Government as the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I honestly believe that, in the broad


sweep of history, his contribution to that process will be far greater than what has happened in the past 24 hours, tragic though that is.

Mr. Hague: This is not about the broad sweep of history; it is about the conduct of the Government—the disgraceful conduct—of the Government. Has this not told us everything we need to know, not about the right hon. Member for Hartlepool but about the way in which the Government do their business? The Prime Minister said that they would be purer than pure and, as with every other pledge, he has failed to deliver. When asked to choose between high standards of government and the low politics of his cronies, he has unerringly chosen the latter. He has set those standards himself. In every incomplete answer in the House, in every distorted accusation and in every piece of baseless spin, the Prime Minister has set the standards of the Government. In a Government where standards of truth, honesty and integrity have taken second place to spin and smear, is he not truly the first among equals?

The Prime Minister: I really think that by that performance the right hon. Gentleman diminishes himself far more than he diminishes anybody else—[Interruption.] I believe that. I made it clear that if people did something wrong, they would pay the penalty; and my right hon. Friend has paid the penalty—that is true. I also believe that he can be very proud of his record and the contribution that he made while he was in Government. As for the rest of the nonsense the Leader of the Opposition has spoken, I have no intention of getting into it.

Mr. Barry Jones: That was the shabbiest contribution from a Leader of the Opposition in living memory.
May I tell my right hon. Friend that the steel company, Corus, has given hundreds and hundreds of millions of pounds to its shareholders, but now plans to make thousands and thousands of its magnificent work force redundant and that that cannot be right? It must be unjust. May I also tell him that steelworkers at Shotton in my constituency stand to lose their cold strip mill, even though they are the most efficient and effective work force in the product? Does he agree that the activities of Corus will denude our manufacturing capability? No nation can be great without a steel industry.

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend is, of course, absolutely right to raise the concerns of his constituents and to pay tribute to their skill and productivity. They are among some of the most highly productive and skilled workers anywhere in the country—or, indeed, the whole of Europe. We therefore very much regret the discussions that are presently going on in the Corus company. We shall do everything that we can to avoid that situation, and we have already made that clear to the company itself.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: Does the Prime Minister agree that if there is an error of judgment at work in the Chamber this afternoon, it is perhaps the error of judgment that fails to acknowledge that the Prime Minister, as a result of this morning's events, has confirmed that Ministers of the

Crown must not just be beyond reproach, but be seen to be beyond reproach? Does he agree that one of the practical implications of today's events is that the ministerial code of conduct should be reviewed with the specific aim of seeking to further public confidence in the political process as a whole?

The Prime Minister: I do not believe it is necessary to review the code; it is necessary to make judgments under it. I think that the code is indeed justified in its own terms. I thank the right hon. Gentleman, however, for the tone of the rest of his remarks, which stand in contrast with the Conservative Opposition, who, I suspect, have for some weeks tried to get out an argument on policy and failed, and are all too happy to turn to something else.

Mr. Kennedy: May I further ask the Prime Minister a question on policy, and a very important policy it is, too—the continuation of the Northern Ireland peace process? Given the exchanges earlier this afternoon in the Chamber, will he confirm that the momentum of the Government remains undiminished in seeking to make the progress that both sides of the House want, but to which only two parties have given voice in the House this afternoon?

The Prime Minister: I want to place on record the importance of the Northern Ireland peace process, yet again. Whatever the difficulties and whatever the obstacles in the way of its completion, Northern Ireland today is a better and more prosperous place than it was a few years ago, before that peace process came about. Of course—because it is a process, not an event—it will take an enormous amount of work, and, of course, it takes immense political courage by those involved, but I am sure that it is better to be involved in pushing the process on than to stand aside and hope that it will fail. I have no doubt at all that, for the people in Northern Ireland, the peace process still represents the only conceivable chance of the stable and decent future that they deserve.

Kali Mountford: Since last week when my right hon. Friend told the House that he had had no application from the Americans for a nuclear base in Yorkshire, my constituents have been made fearful by the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition. I have told them that they should write to him and tell him about his error of judgment, but what can my right hon. Friend say to my constituents to put their minds at rest?

The Prime Minister: I can assure my hon. Friend—as, indeed, I said in the exchanges with the Leader of the Opposition last week —that when we get a proposal, we will consider it carefully and make our decisions on it, but our closeness to our American allies is well known. However, this is in the box marked "Handle with care"—which is what we will do.

Mr. David Chidgey: Is the Prime Minister aware that the recent increase in police numbers in Hampshire has merely restored the force to its 1998 levels? We are still 90 police officers under budget and a further 95 short on recruitment. Although the package for the Metropolitan police is welcome, does he realise that the offer of a free rail season ticket is inducing officers who work in Eastleigh to leave the Hampshire


force and commute to London? Will he assure the House that he will introduce as soon as possible a comprehensive, flexible package for police officers in Hampshire so that we can recruit and retain the officers that we need to police the area properly?

The Prime Minister: We are, in fact, awaiting a response from the Police Negotiating Board to our proposals, which are designed to attract and recruit officers in areas such as Eastleigh. Although those areas are not within the London region, they are none the less areas with buoyant levels of employment where house prices are high. We are waiting for the board to come back to us on those proposals.
As for Hampshire, I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman acknowledges that its number of police officers has increased. I emphasise once again that that is only because of the levels of investment that we are putting into the police. We are also making investment available in Hampshire and elsewhere so that we can continue to recruit in the coming years. If we can bolster that with a package—albeit it one that might be different from the London package—that attracts new recruits to an even greater extent, we will make progress faster.

Dr. Brian Iddon: Bolton hospitals have the second-highest mortality rate in the north-west and the eighth highest in the country, according to a recent report. The Wigan and Bolton health authority was the second farthest away from target for health funding in 1997. Does my right hon. Friend agree that my constituents and those who live in similarly deprived areas deserve better targeting for health expenditure in the future?

The Prime Minister: It is indeed important that we manage to put the extra investment in the health service into areas such as that represented by my hon. Friend. One reason that we know how the different areas now compare in terms of health performance is because we publish the data. One reason why we are able to see whether, for example, similar hospitals in similar areas are performing differently is because we have conducted and published a review of those data.
However, there is no alternative in the medium and long term to getting the extra investment into the service. We need to ensure that it goes into primary care services to increase the number of doctors and nurses and to increase the facilities in our hospitals. We are providing that investment. As my hon. Friend knows, the difference between Labour and the Conservatives is that we believe in investing in our public services and they do not.

Dr. Vincent Cable: Is not the Prime Minister seriously concerned that he presides over a political system in which it is possible for a very rich man to purchase for £10 million the foreign and economic policy and choice of leader of a major political party? In view of today's events, what does he propose to do to stop rich people seeking to purchase political influence in that way?

The Prime Minister: I was not sure initially where the hon. Gentleman's question was leading, but if it is the case that someone has for £10 million purchased the right

hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) as leader of the Conservative party, I am surprised he ever made the money in the first place.

Mr. Richard Burden: I think my right hon. Friend is aware that yesterday my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) and I returned from the west bank and the Gaza strip. The visit was organised by War on Want, and we had the opportunity to meet President Arafat and representatives of the Israeli Foreign Affairs Ministry.
During our visit, President Arafat offered intensive peace talks, which have subsequently been suspended following the deaths of two Israelis. Given that more than 300 Palestinians have also died and that this weekend an Israeli settler who killed a Palestinian 10-year-old child was sentenced to six months' community service, will my right hon. Friend join me in urging the early resumption of those peace talks, because we must do all we can to achieve comprehensive settlement on the basis of resolutions 242, 338 and 194?

The Prime Minister: I concur entirely that it is important that the peace negotiations get back under way in the middle east. Indeed, quite apart from reasons of stability in the middle east, there is the knock-on effect that instability there has on all countries in the region and on western countries, including our own. I believe that it is important that those peace talks resume, because the one thing that we have learned from our own peace process in Northern Ireland is that, if these processes are not solved or at least managed, they slip backwards very fast indeed.
The tragedy of the middle east is that people were so close to agreement and then, in the past few months, it has fallen apart again. Therefore, I am very happy to play whatever part I can—we do what we can—to make sure that the peace negotiations resume in the interests of not just the Israelis and the Palestinians, but the whole region and the wider world.

Mr. Andrew George: Has this country got its priorities right when million-pound cheques of public subsidy are given to large agribusiness holdings, which do not need them, while small and efficient family farms, which are the bedrock of rural life, are going out of business in their droves?

The Prime Minister: I know that a debate has often gone on about the levels of subsidy to large and small farms. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has particular cases in mind, but I emphasise to him that, overall, we in this country pay out about £3,000 million a year by way of subsidy to the whole farming industry. Incidentally, that is more than we pay out to all the other industries of the country put together.
However, it is important that we review constantly how that money is used. One of the reasons that we want reform of the common agricultural policy in the European Union is to make sure that we reward and help efficient farms—whether small or large—and do not subsidise farms that perhaps need to diversify or change their practices.

Mr. Stuart Bell: May I echo the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn


and Deeside (Mr. Jones) and make my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister aware of the serious concern on Teesside about the threatened job losses in Corus? He will be aware of the discussions that my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry and for Wales have had with the Corus management. He will also be aware that the value of the pound is more in equilibrium with the euro and the deutschmark and that our skills and work force are second to none, so is it not appropriate to tell Corus's management that they should think, think and think again?

The Prime Minister: What my hon. Friend says is entirely right. We have very much urged that course upon the Corus management. There are difficulties with certain manufacturing companies as a result of the strength of the pound or the weakness of the euro over the past few months. That problem has somewhat abated now, and that is why I hope that Corus uses that as an opportunity to rethink this policy.
The fact is that we have an economy that is immensely strong and that is doing very well, but there are pockets, particularly in the manufacturing sector, that face very hard times. We will do everything that we can as a Government, within proper limits, to help, but I hope that Corus recognises that it has a work force as dedicated and as skilled as any work force in the country.

Mr. Edward Leigh: Is the Prime Minister aware that, yesterday, British Sugar announced the closure of the Bardney factory in my constituency and of other sugar factories around the country? Sugar beet has been one of the few buoyant sectors in agriculture. It is being put at risk in the atmosphere of uncertainty caused by the everything but arms initiative and quota arrangements where the Government's message, at best, has been mixed.
Does the Prime Minister appreciate that, up and down the country, as farmers face the worst agricultural depression since the 1930s, they cannot understand why the Government are promoting measures that are, at best, irrelevant and, at worst, damaging to the cause of farmers? Is he also aware that there is hope? The people are gathering and, on 18 March, the greatest march ever will descend on this capital—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his good, fair share.

The Prime Minister: I am aware of the announcement that was made yesterday, although I do not agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman has said about the reasons for it being made. However, in respect of agriculture, farmers have been facing a very difficult situation over the past few years, and that is for three reasons primarily. First, there has been a collapse in commodity prices, not particularly in relation to the industry that he mentioned but in others. Secondly, farmers have had the problems of BSE. Thirdly, they have had to deal with the problems of the very strong pound.
We are doing everything we can. We have had emergency aid packages for farmers. I have just pointed out the huge subsidies that we pay out, although I recall that the hon. Gentleman was never keen on subsidies as a matter of principle when he was in government; perhaps

he has changed his views now. The point is that we are doing everything we can, but I do not think that his constituents or others in the farming industry are helped by people who say that there is a simple solution to their problems. There is not. Each of the three problems has to be dealt with. Some of them are outside our control, but the support that we are giving exceeds many of the programmes introduced by the previous Government.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Will my right hon. Friend take no lessons from the party of Neil Hamilton, Lord Archer and Jonathan Aitken, but continue resolutely with record public spending on health, education and other public services and warn the public of the dangers of the £16 billion worth of cuts from the Conservative party?

The Prime Minister: Of course, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are very big choices—the last thing that the Conservatives ever want to discuss—before the country. There is stability in economic policy versus a return to the levels of interest rates, debt, mortgage repossessions and unemployment seen under the previous Administration. There is 1 million extra jobs versus 3 million unemployed. There is the extra investment in public services versus the £16 billion worth of cuts in public services. Whatever spring in their step the Conservatives have today, when it gets to those big choices, I can assure them that they will lose and we will win.

Mr. Nigel Evans: On 25 February 1998, I asked the Prime Minister to come to Ribble Valley to see for himself the plight of the countryside, but he was too busy to come. Since then, things have got decidedly worse, with more post office closures, local rural schools closing—one closed in my constituency only last year—the highest petrol taxes anywhere in Europe, country pursuits now facing extinction and farming facing the worst crisis in more than 60 years.
The Prime Minister would not come to Ribble Valley three years ago, but on 18 March the countryside will come to him. Will he give a commitment to the countryside to remain in London on 18 March and to receive a delegation of marchers from Ribble Valley, so that they can tell kin face to face how bad it is in the countryside these days?

The Prime Minister: First, let me put the hon. Gentleman right on a few facts. Yes, it is true that there have been closures of rural post offices: there were about 3,000 closures under the previous Conservative Government and that process has continued for reasons with which we are all familiar, but the current Government are putting in additional investment to try to give rural post offices a future. On the issue of rural schools, I honestly do not know how he or any other Conservative Member has the cheek to go on about the closures—the Conservatives closed hundreds of rural schools, whereas the Labour party is putting investment into our schools. As for fuel duty, I shall point out only one fact: in the last Parliament, there was a greater increase in fuel duty than there has been in the current Parliament. Those are the facts.
As for the future, the countryside needs two things: a stable economy, which we are providing, and help for the farming industry, which we are providing. Most of all, people in the countryside need investment in their schools, their hospitals and their police. Before the hon. Gentleman tries to capitalise on any grievances they have, he should explain to them how he will revive those schools, hospitals and police when he is committed to cutting the very investment on which they depend.

Ms Joan Ryan: May I tell my right hon. Friend that in my constituency youth unemployment has fallen by 73 per cent. since the advent of the Labour Government? Last week, employers expressed deep concern about the Conservatives' threats to abolish the new deal. Will my right hon. Friend give further reassurance that the new deal will continue to be an important part of Labour's programme?

The Prime Minister: The new deal will certainly remain a very important part of the Government's programme because it has helped to cut youth unemployment. Long-term youth unemployment has fallen by about 70 per cent. We remember the days when hundreds of thousands of this county's young people had no hope; the new deal has given them hope. The new deal has provided investment in our schools. How many Members of Parliament, including Conservative Members, have got extra investment in their local schools as a result of the new deal? It has also helped many lone parents to get back into work when they want to do so.
The danger of the Opposition is not merely that they are committed to cutting the new deal—a policy that will cut that hope for the young and that investment in school buildings—but also that, as the shadow Chancellor said the other day, they are committed to taking half a billion pounds off single parent benefit in this country, at the same time as abolishing the new deal that helps single parents to get away from benefit and into work. That is another very good reason why the people of this country will see through the Opposition whenever the election comes.

Mr. Richard Allan: The Prime Minister may be aware that the UK Parliament has been overtaken in the use of new technology by other bodies such as the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly. Given his public commitment to placing the UK at the forefront of the information age, does he believe that his Government could and should do more to support the UK Parliament, so that citizens can properly engage with representatives in this House?

The Prime Minister: As something of a novice in the new technology, I can certainly undertake to discuss that matter with my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench. Of course, it is important for this Parliament to set a good example in the use of new technology. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me that support for such technology is important for every single part of our country. I am happy to support him in his endeavours in this place.

Points of Order

Miss Ann Widdecombe: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Lady is making a point of order.

Miss Widdecombe: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have given notice of this point of order to you and also to the Home Secretary.
I do not want to make any further comment on matters concerning the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. However, there are issues surrounding what happened in the Home Office after his representation was made. There are also issues about what action was taken after that representation, whether the representation had any bearing on the seemingly extraordinary speed with which the application was then settled and what records exist in the Home Office of the various conversations that occurred. Have you received any request from the Home Secretary for the opportunity to make a statement to clear the matter up once and for all?

Mr. Speaker: I have received no requests from the Home Secretary.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister, being a pretty straight kind of guy, informed the House that he has rightly set up an inquiry into the events surrounding the resignation of the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Has your office received any indication from his office about whether the report containing the

results of that inquiry will be rendered to the House before, during or only after any election campaign that the Prime Minister is minded to initiate?

Mr. Speaker: No.

Sir Peter Emery: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for not giving you notice of this point of order, which arises from Question Time. I think that the House applauds you for trying to ensure that questions and answers are shorter. One understands the position of new Members, but most hon. Members have now been in the House for two or three years. Would not it greatly help the House if hon. Members began by asking a question and not by providing a large roll call of events before they do so? Cannot we get questions and answers to be as they are meant to be: short and concise?

Mr. Speaker: I am pleased that the right hon. Gentleman has raised that matter, which, as he will know, I put to the House shortly before Christmas. It is not only the newer Members who are guilty of the actions to which he refers, but also some of the most senior, although I do not, of course, refer to him.

Mr. David Lidington: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you know, it has occasionally been the practice that, when the Government announce an inquiry, Ministers use it as a reason not to give substantive answers to parliamentary questions about the subjects that the inquiry is investigating. Can you take steps to discover whether Ministers intend to use the inquiry to block answering any parliamentary questions until it reports? If that is their intention, can you take steps to protect the interests of all hon. Members?

Mr. Speaker: I shall not inquire into Ministers' intentions. I am bound by the rules of the House, which the hon. Gentleman has helped to create. As long as Ministers and hon. Members keep to those rules, I have nothing to say in such matters.

Opposition Day

[2ND ALLOTTED DAY]

Manufacturing Industry

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), I announce that there is a 15-minute limit on speeches from Back Benchers, and that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory (Wells): I beg to move,
That this House is alarmed at the continuing job losses in manufacturing industry, which now total over 300,000 since the 1997 election; condemns the Government for having abandoned this sector of the economy while burdening it with additional taxes and regulations; and demands that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry brings forward a strategy for restoring the competitiveness of British manufacturing industry in world markets.
I declare the interests recorded in the Register of Members' Interests that are relevant to the debate.
We have called the debate to galvanise the Department of Trade and Industry and the Government generally into doing something about the plight of manufacturing industry. We want to shake them out of their inertia into dealing with the crisis in large sectors of manufacturing.
Since the general election in 1997, approximately 350,000 jobs have been lost in manufacturing. The cause is a fatal combination of complacency and failed policies. The Government are complacent because they inherited from us a golden economic legacy, which they have failed to maintain. Indeed, they have eroded the competitiveness that we achieved. Their policies have failed because they have not understood the challenges that manufacturing faces in the modem world. They have imposed layer upon layer of extra regulations and business taxes, which have attacked our competitiveness.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I will give way later.
The CBI has estimated that the total burden of taxes and regulations during this Parliament amounts to £32 billion. That is a ball and chain around the ankle of British manufacturing industry. There is a time lag in the effects of that burden, but they are now apparent in a clear loss of competitiveness.
The World Economic Forum reports that the United Kingdom has slipped down the competitiveness league from fourth place under the Conservative Government to ninth place now. That affects manufacturing jobs. Last year, more than 100,000 net jobs were lost in that sector. I contrast that with the figures for the last Parliament. From 1992–97, the number of manufacturing jobs increased by 69,000.
Today, firms and industries are threatened throughout the country. Ford and Vauxhall have announced the end of car making at several of their plants. We desperately hope that Nissan will retain its capacity to make the next Micra in Sunderland. However, that is in the balance. Last year, Corus, our largest steel manufacturer, shed 4,500

jobs. This year, another 6,000 jobs are threatened, especially in important plants in Redcar and Llanwern. If Llanwern shuts, it will be a body blow to the entire south Wales economy, and the ripple effect will be felt much more widely. My constituency, which supplies limestone to Llanwern, will be affected. I therefore appreciate the seriousness of the matter.
Amid all that, the Department of Trade and Industry has become a mere spectator, although it has got bigger: the Secretary of State presides over a Department that has gained 1,000 more civil servants since the general election—but what are they all doing? The Department cannot even pay its own bills on time.
In a previous incarnation, the Secretary of State negotiated a public service agreement with the DTI. It states unambiguously that the DTI is
committed to paying all correctly presented bills within 30 days of receipt.
Shortly after the agreement, the right hon. Gentleman was in a position to deliver on it. He became Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—and what has happened? The performance has worsened: the DTI has broken its agreement.
Under the last Government, the Department was paying all its own bills 98 per cent. of the time. The percentage has now slipped to 93. The Department is very near the bottom of the Whitehall league table: it is 51st worst of a total of 57. It cannot even pay the money that it owes companies for goods supplied. So much for helping British industry.
Even more striking is the saga of the disappearing ministerial group on manufacturing job losses. The House will recall that at the end of last year there was a lot of adverse comment about manufacturing job losses. The Government announced to the press—not, of course, to the House—that a ministerial group would be set up. On 21 December last year, the Leader of the House confirmed the existence of the group, saying:
The group will consider a range of manufacturing issues.— [Official Report, 21 December 2000; Vol. 360, c. 574.]
The Christmas and new year holiday went by, and the job losses were temporarily out of the news. My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), however, tabled a parliamentary question to the Department asking what had happened to the ministerial group. He received the reply:
There is no such group.—[Official Report, 8 January 2001: Vol. 360, c.356W.]
That is the story of the incredible shrinking ministerial group. It simply vanished into thin air.
The reason is that the DTI is driven entirely by media considerations. If something is in the news, it does something about it—or it says that it will do something about it. When the issue is no longer in the news, it gets forgotten.
We also remember the famous saga of rip-off Britain. At the 1997 Labour party conference, the Secretary of State intoned solemnly:
rip-off Britain must come to an end … We've already started. Investigations have begun into the cost of … prices at supermarkets. It is simply unacceptable to have hard-earned wages pickpocketed at the cash register.
A year later, after the industry had had to spend £20 million explaining its case to the Competition


Commission—which itself spent nearly £4 million of public money on one of its biggest inquiries ever—the result was the following statement:
we are satisfied that the industry is currently broadly competitive and that, overall, excessive prices are not being charged, nor excessive profits earned.
That was the end of "rip-off Britain"—a soundbite at the time, huge public and private expense, and nothing at the end of it.
This is a Government, this is a Department, this is a Secretary of State obsessed with packaging and appearance rather than with substance and delivery. A worse charge, however, is that the Government and the DTI are weak in regard to industrial issues.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: My right hon. Friend talks of the weakness of the DTI. A few moments ago, he talked of the weakness of the car industry. Does he agree with the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, which says that
the Climate Change Levy will result in substantial increases in production costs for the UK motor industry
and adds:
In a globally competitive market it is not possible to pass on these cost increases, and there are fears that UK based businesses—
including the car industry—
will lose out as a consequence.
Is my hon. Friend therefore surprised by the closure of Vauxhall and other plants?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I shall say more on that point in a moment.
It is typical that, at Prime Minister's Question Time today, the right hon. Gentleman said that he would do everything possible to save such companies, yet he will not abolish or withdraw the damaging tax that will come into effect in April.

Mr. Andrew Miller: rose—

Mr. Pike: rose—

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I promised that I would give way to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike).

Mr. Pike: I represent a constituency that is heavily dependent on manufacturing jobs. Was the right hon. Gentleman not being somewhat selective when he referred to the previous Government's record from 1992 onwards? What about the period of Thatcherism, during which the importance of manufacturing industry was totally dismissed? The Thatcher Government were in office for many years, and witnessed the loss of many hundreds of thousands of jobs, and the complete deletion of many manufacturing centres from this country.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I know how strongly the hon. Gentleman feels about that, because he is affected by some of the job losses about which I am speaking.
Yes, the restructuring in the 1980s caused job losses, but those policies of industrial and trade union reform are now accepted by the Government as an essential precondition to the industrial recovery that followed. I repeat that, after we had achieved the restructuring, jobs in manufacturing industry rose under the Conservative Government. Then, in came the new Labour Government, who abandoned manufacturing industry and ignored its problems, resulting in 350,000 job losses over the past four years. I ask hon. Members to consider the truth of those statistics and what lies behind them.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: If hon. Members will forgive me, I want to make a little more progress, because this is a short debate.
My essential charge is that the Department of Trade and Industry does not stand up for manufacturing industry. There are many examples of that, including energy prices. Industrial gas prices have doubled over the past year. Indeed, that is the subject of an early-day motion tabled by Labour Members. However, when challenged about this problem—which affects all manufacturing industry—the DTI simply said that it
continued to monitor the gas market.
That is a wholly inadequate response to a very real problem.
There is much worse to come. I come to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) in his intervention. From April this year, all firms will be paying a new energy tax—the so-called climate change levy—on all their energy bills, including those reflecting the higher gas prices that are now feeding through. The Engineering Employers Federation has shown in a recent survey that 2,300 of its member firms, employing nearly 1.5 million people, will have to pay nearly £100 million extra in taxation. That money could have gone into investment, but the costs will now have to be fed into higher prices, which will make the firms less competitive in the international markets.

Mr. Tom King: I am bound to agree with my right hon. Friend's assessment about the prospects for manufacturing industry, which are serious.
I know of a number of companies that have managed to compete, despite the strong pound, and that have been hanging on, albeit at a reduced level of performance. Unfortunately, however, the new energy prices are likely to be the final straw that will break their backs.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My right hon. Friend speaks from great experience, and also from regional experience: his constituency is next to mine, and we share a number of firms that will have direct experience of the high energy prices. What baffles those firms—and annoys them—is the supine indifference of the Department to this escalating problem, and the fact that it is bringing into effect a tax in a few months' time that will make a bad situation worse.
The Engineering Employers Federation is particularly annoyed that the companies that they surveyed do not even qualify for the limited rebates available under the new tax. Those firms are in textiles, rubber, plastics, motor vehicles and aircraft manufacturing—they go right


across the manufacturing spectrum—and they cannot understand why they will not he eligible for the rebates available.
To be eligible, firms must be polluting companies and must be regulated under anti-pollution regulations. I promise the House that what I say is true: there are firms that have switched to cleaner industrial processes, thereby making themselves ineligible for the rebates. In other words, they are doing the right thing for the environment—trying to clean up their plants and stopping the pollution—but, by doing that, they are rendering themselves ineligible for the rebates under the new energy tax. That is the politics of a madhouse.
Everything has been explained to the Government. Firms in my constituency, firms in London and firms up north and in the midlands, which I visit, have patiently told DTI officials and Ministers exactly what the problem is, but they get no response whatever.

Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Environmental Protection Act 1990 had a significant impact on British manufacturing industry inasmuch as many major chemical, gas and plastics sectors were forced to suspend their processes altogether because the cost of implementing the legislation was so great? If he had the opportunity, would he repeal the Act, knowing what he now knows about the impact of the cost of implementing it?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: No, I would not. We took great care to minimise the impact on our manufacturing industry and to ensure its competitiveness in world markets. That is completely different from what is happening now, whereby the Government are deliberately introducing a new tax when energy prices are already rising. The tax does not need to be introduced. The Finance Act 2000 only allows the Government to introduce the measure; it could be withdrawn today. The Secretary of State could get to his feet, say that he has listened and learned and tell the House that he will not bring the tax into effect. That would provide immense relief right across manufacturing industry, and I challenge him to do so in the debate.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I visited a factory in my constituency a few weeks ago and was told that gas supply cost the company £300,000 last year. Next year, the bill will be £600,000. Gas is the company's third largest cost so it does not need the Government to tell it to try to reduce energy costs.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Exactly. That experience and that information is available to the Government; it has been explained to them. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. There is real anger and frustration that the Government appear to listen, but fail to act.

Mr. Michael Jack: rose—

Mr. Stephen O'Brien: rose—

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I shall give way once more, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack).

Mr. Jack: Is my right hon. Friend aware that certain industries—chemicals and sugar, for example—made

efforts to introduce combined heat and power schemes to improve energy efficiency? Some of those investments have had to be cancelled because of the barmy nature of the climate change levy.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My right hon. Friend is entirely right. Those are other industries that have been let down. They were promised that all combined heat and power plants would be exempt from the levy, but that turned out to be completely untrue. The larger plants used by the sugar industry and others will pay the levy, at least in part. Industry is trying to do what is right for the environment and trying to save energy, but it will be clobbered by a new and unnecessary tax.
We heard about Corus at Prime Minister's questions and I have already referred to it. The company will pay some £8 million a year under the tax. That will completely undermine any rescue package that it is trying to put together. The tax will also be bad for the environment. If steel making is exported to countries with lower environmental standards, the global environment will suffer, so the tax does not even make sense from an environmental perspective.
Corus is not the only company affected. Sony, which also has a plant in south Wales, announced 400 job losses at the end of last year and said:
It is not just the euro; it is the fact that all these things are coming together … Transport costs are very high in the United Kingdom and the climate change levy alone will add £500,000 to the cost of our … tube-making business.
There is therefore a direct link between a new tax and 400 job losses in south Wales.

Judy Mallaber: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Will the hon. Lady forgive me? This is a short debate and I still have two points that I wish to make. I hope that the hon. Lady will have an opportunity to speak later; hon. Members on both sides of the House wish to do something for manufacturing and want clear answers from those on the Government Front Bench on the subject.
The climate change levy is bad, damaging and environmentally unnecessary. We will abolish it: that is a clear pledge. However that is not enough. We require from the Government a package of measures to help manufacturing industry. There is the issue of the pound-euro exchange rate, which the House should not ignore. Exporters to Europe have real problems, which are made worse by the fact that the Chancellor has made a commitment to increase public spending way above the economy's growth rate over the next three years. That, in turn, tends to keep interest rates, as set by the Bank of England, higher than they otherwise would be.
We will ensure that manufacturing industry is represented, not on the Monetary Policy Committee, which would not be right, but as a member of the committee of economic advisers which we will set up to ensure that the fiscal stance—the borrowing, taxing and expenditure profile of the Government—is consistent with keeping inflation under control and having interest rates no higher than they need to be for that purpose. That gives manufacturing a place at the top table, which it has been denied under the Government.
Then there is the question of the regulatory burden. The Government have vaguely woken up to the fact that there is a regulatory problem in this country and have even promised a Bill for this Session, although we have not seen it yet. There are great doubts about whether we will; it will certainly not be enacted by the date of the election. We shall ensure that every Department has a deregulation budget to reduce business's regulatory costs year by year. We shall ensure that that is independently audited and reported to the House.
What we really want from the Government is equivalent action. Instead of blaming every past Government for mistakes, why does the Secretary of State not take some responsibility himself and use his Department to stand up for manufacturing industry? He should listen to those who manage and work in those threatened industries and hear what they say about the burden of red tape, rising energy prices and extra taxation. Above all, will the Secretary of State and the Government stop wringing their hands about those job losses and actually do something so that those industries can regain their lost competitiveness and their vigour in world markets?

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
welcomes the low inflation and low interest rates that this Government has brought and which bring the economic stability needed by the manufacturing sector; welcomes the measures that this Government has taken to encourage investment, innovation and productivity which will particularly help manufacturing businesses; welcomes the Government's approach in helping businesses and people through structural change as opposed to the previous Government's laissez-faire approach; and condemns the Opposition's record on manufacturing, where employment declined by 2¾ million during its period in office.".
Manufacturing matters to the Government, and I want to use this opportunity to outline success stories in the manufacturing sector in the United Kingdom at the beginning of the 21st century. I then want to go on to tell the House how we intend to assist those industries that are going through the painful process of restructuring at present.
Manufacturing matters because it accounts for about one fifth of our national income, with almost £150 billion a year of output. Manufacturing employs about 4 million people directly, and indirectly employs 2.5 million people in service sector jobs. A strong manufacturing sector is therefore a vital part of our economic base, and it includes some of the businesses that have invested most heavily in innovation.
Manufacturing clearly faces challenges, but equally it includes some of the United Kingdom's most successful companies. We have much to be proud of in our manufacturing sector. However, people too often talk down manufacturing, as the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) did in his 20-minute speech—[Interruption.]

Mr. Fabricant: No, he did not.

Mr. Byers: Some Opposition Members were clearly not listening to the points that the right hon. Gentleman made; but the Official Report will contain his speech.
I want to examine some success stories in manufacturing, particularly in the sectors that have blossomed because of the Government's initiatives. In aerospace, employment has increased by one fifth. There are almost 14,000 extra jobs in the aerospace industry since 1998.

Mr. Jack: Will the Secretary of State give way on that industry?

Mr. Byers: Yes, of course.

Mr. Jack: BAE Systems in my constituency is facing uncertainty about possible large job losses. The Secretary of State recently visited India. What assurances and guarantees can he give to my aerospace workers that everything possible is being done to enable the United Kingdom and BAE Systems to win an order from the Indian Government for the Hawk aircraft?

Mr. Byers: The right hon. Gentleman makes a very important point, and I am conscious of the importance of the Hawk order for his constituents and for those who work for BAE Systems. He is right to say that when I was in India a couple of weeks ago I met a number of Indian Government Ministers, including the Minister for Defence, George Fernandes. One of the issues that I specifically raised was BAE Systems's desire to provide the Hawk aircraft to the Indian air force.
The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the negotiations have been going on for an inordinate lime. However, I am clear that they are now very close to a successful conclusion. I hope that the two or three relatively minor outstanding issues can be resolved in the near future. It is a significant order if it can be secured. I also know that, if that can be achieved, it will bring a degree of confidence to his constituents about their future employment prospects.
We shall certainly continue to do all that we can, on a Government to Government level and a Government to industry level, to try to secure that contract. I am sure that it will be secured, but I am also conscious that it needs to be done sooner rather than later. We shall use our best endeavours to that effect, and I shall keep the right hon. Gentleman informed on that important matter. However, there is success in the aerospace industry. I recognise, too, that it is going through structural changes.
In other sectors, such as fibre optics, which underpins the internet, DTI support in programmes such as LINK has helped to establish the United Kingdom as the European leader. In the past 12 months alone, more than 7,000 new research and development and manufacturing jobs have been announced in the United Kingdom fibre-optic sector.
Contrary to some perceptions, we have strengths also in the car industry. Since 1997, £3 billion of new investment has been announced and more than 10,000 new jobs created in United Kingdom car manufacturing.

Mr. Fabricant: The Secretary of State will know that the Toyota plant is not far from my Lichfield constituency. What can he say about the strategic talks currently being held between Toyota and Ford?

Mr. Byers: That is a matter for Toyota and Ford, which are commercial organisations, and the hon. Gentleman


and the right hon. Member for Wells would be the first to criticise me and the Government if we were to interfere in those discussions. I should have hoped that the hon. Gentleman would mention the positive announcement, just a couple of weeks ago, that Toyota is switching production of the Corolla from Japan to Derbyshire, increasing its United Kingdom production by almost one third—to 220,000 vehicles by the end of this year—and creating 300 new jobs as a result. But there is no comment from the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Fabricant: It is good.

Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman's constituents will benefit from that investment, and I am pleased that he now recognises its importance. Jaguar is investing £300 million at Halewood to build the new X-type model. Volkswagen is investing £500 million over five years to increase Bentley production at its site in Crewe.
There are success stories, then, and the reason is that we are delivering what manufacturing wants: economic stability. If we turn the clock back just 10 years, inflation was in double figures and interest rates were at 15 per cent. The Government will not return to those days, because we saw the damage that was done to manufacturing in our country. That was ignored by the right hon. Member for Wells.

Mr. Llew Smith: Would my right hon. Friend care to turn the clock back two years, to when the steel company Corus was formed? I noticed that the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) seemed to imply that the problems facing Corus arose because of the £8 million of the climate change levy. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the fact that workers in Ebbw Vale are facing redundancy has nothing to do with the climate change levy, and that £8 million is peanuts compared with the £700 million that Corus has handed out as sweeteners to its shareholders; the £900 million that it has appropriated from the worker's pension fund; the £135 that it has wasted in buying up companies abroad, only investing £3 million in this country; the millions of pounds handed out to the sacked chief executive; and the huge payments to former Dutch managers?
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the real issues facing the steel industry have nothing to do with the climate change levy and everything to do with a company that is determined to destroy an industry that generations of people in my community in Ebbw Vale have built up?

Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend speaks with passion on behalf of his constituents, and I intend shortly to speak about Corus specifically. He mentioned the £8 million cost to Corus of the climate change levy, referred to by the right hon. Member for Wells as though it were the foundation of the company's problems. My hon. Friend was right to call it peanuts. The right hon. Gentleman should be aware of the fact that every 1 pfennig movement in currency between the pound and the deutschmark costs Corus £8 million. When it comes to investment and currency stability, his policy of ruling out for ever joining a single European currency would be the worst policy for manufacturing in the United Kingdom.

Judy Mallaber: Will my right hon. Friend also recall the position under the Tory Government, when 500,000

jobs were lost in the textiles and clothing sector? Considering the difficult position in the industry at present, including job losses in my constituency, will he reaffirm the Government's policy of working closely with industry to look for new opportunities and to seek to stem job losses—unlike the previous Government, who did nothing whatever and simply sat on their hands?

Mr. Byers: I can confirm that. As with the steel industry, I want to outline the help that the Government can give to the textiles industry, which is going through restructuring and faces challenges as a result of competition from overseas. I will shortly address those points in detail.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The Secretary of State rightly underlined the significance of currency fluctuations, not only for the steel industry but for manufacturing generally, and the way in which instability militates against long-term development. That being so, should not the Government give much clearer signs of a commitment to enter the euro and to create the circumstances, as a deliberate target of policy, to enable that to happen?

Mr. Byers: Our policy is very clear. We can see the benefits of joining the single European currency. Transparency of costs, improvements in trade and currency stability are probably the three prime benefits of membership. However, the economic conditions have to be right. That is why we have the five economic tests laid down by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. When those have been met, it will be for Government, for Parliament and for the people to decide. That is a policy that business understands. Business tells me that the worst possible policy would be the one adopted by the Conservative party: to rule out joining a single currency for the lifetime of the next Parliament. It is a policy dictated by dogma. It does not consider the economic prospects of industry and of manufacturing in particular.
That should not surprise us, however, given the Conservative party's record in regard to manufacturing. The right hon. Member for Wells was very selective about the years that he chose to give as examples. We should look at what happened to manufacturing at the beginning of the 1990s.
In 1992, there were 7,500 job losses at British Aerospace, including the closure of the firm's Hatfield plant. More than 4,000 jobs were lost with the 1992 closure of the Ravenscraig steel works. There were 6,000 jobs lost with the closure of Rolls-Royce aeroengines in the same year. In 1991–92, 13,000 jobs were lost at GEC, and more than 20,000 were lost at Ferranti in the early 1990s. In 1992 alone, 1,600 metal and engineering companies went bankrupt, as did more than 1,000 textile and clothing manufacturers.
In total, more than 1 million manufacturing jobs were lost in the early 1990s. That is the Tory record.

Mr. John Bercow: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Byers: I want to make some progress, but I shall try and give way to the hon. Gentleman a little later.
The manufacturing sector has told the Government clearly that companies need confidence to invest, and that that requires the right economic climate and stability. That is why, on coming to office, the Government took immediate and decisive action to ensure economic stability and low inflation. Inflation remains around or below the target of 2.5 per cent., and long-term interest rates are at their lowest level for 35 years.
I am sure that Conservative Members would not be content to take the Government's word for that, so I quote David Smith's article in last weekend's edition of The Sunday Times:
It has been an extraordinary turnaround. Ten years ago Britain's economy was in a state of deep despair. Inflation was in double figures, unemployment climbing ever higher, house prices collapsing and the country over a year away from the light at the end of the longest recession since the war. Now, according to new figures, we can look hack on an economic golden age that shows little sign of coming to an end … Unemployment, at just over 1 m, is at its lowest since 1975, and a third of its level in the early 1990s, with skill shortages a bigger problem than shortages of jobs. Inflation is the lowest since 1976 … in practice the lowest for a long time before that. The government, far from being strapped for cash, has a big budget surplus.
I know that The Sun newspaper is beloved of many Conservative Members.

Mr. Bercow: I get it delivered every day.

Mr. Byers: There is no higher commendation. The newspaper's political editor, Trevor Kavanagh, is one of the country's best. In today's edition, he wrote:
Britain is the best place in the world to do business, according to a new survey. America is left trailing in second place … The survey by management giant Arthur Andersen and independent analysts GrowthPlus covers 10 nations, and is due to be published tomorrow; but a copy seen by The Sun names Britain the "outright winner". It says
Our benchmark shows the United Kingdom as being the country that overall provides the most entrepreneur-friendly environment. We can see that the UK nurtures growth through tax incentives.
That is how The Sun has reported that very important report.

Sir David Madel: rose—

Mr. Bercow: rose—

Mr. Laurence Robertson: rose—

Mr. Byers: I have a choice, so I shall take a pro-European first and give way to the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Sir D. Madel). I shall then allow the anti-Europeans in.

Sir David Madel: Will the Secretary of State say why, if everything is so wonderful and the UK is such a good place to invest in, we cannot persuade General Motors to continue building cars in Luton?

Mr. Byers: I have been in touch with the company to see whether it will reconsider the decision, but the hon. Gentleman will know that the decision also affects plants in Germany and north America. It was not just a United

Kingdom issue that was being addressed; it was a global restructuring that General Motors had embarked upon. I hope that it will reconsider that decision and will consult its work force appropriately on how it can see itself through the current difficulties.
General Motors has a responsibility to the work force at Luton. I think that the House understands the anger felt by the workers in that plant, who entered into a partnership with the company, a partnership that the company has now torn up unilaterally. The Government understand the workers' concern and share the anger and frustration felt by the work force in Luton. We shall continue, in the appropriate way, to make representations to the company to try to get that decision changed.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Byers: I shall give way on the question of Vauxhall.

Mr. Miller: It is not just the work force who are angry. Many in this House are extremely angry over the way in which General Motors has treated the work force at both Luton and Ellesmere Port. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend said that he would continue to put pressure on the company. I urge him to make representations at a very early date, because we are now coming to the stage at which, if the company does not shift its position soon, it will be too late. It is very urgent that the Government bring the maximum pressure to bear on the company.

Mr. Byers: I can certainly give my hon. Friend the assurance that we shall be doing precisely that.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Byers: I give way on the question of Vauxhall again.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: What my constituents want to know is this: does the Secretary of State expect Vauxhall in Luton to close?

Mr. Byers: Ultimately that will be a commercial decision for General Motors to take. Right hon. and hon. Members will be aware of that. What we can do is to make the case. That is exactly what the Government have been doing, and we shall continue to do it.

Mr. Bercow: rose—

Mr. Byers: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but let me make some progress first.
I want to address the concerns of two sectors raised by my hon. Friends: textiles and Corus. I should also like to say a word about Nissan.
The right hon. Member for Wells accused the Government of inaction. I can say that, in relation to Nissan and many other sectors of manufacturing, we are doing all we can to ensure that when companies take important commercial decisions they are aware of the benefits that will come from investing in the United Kingdom. We secured European approval for the £40 million grant aid to Nissan in record time. When I met the chief executive of Nissan just 10 days ago in


Tokyo, I made clear to him in a face-to-face meeting the importance of this investment not just for Sunderland, but for the United Kingdom. I hope that when he takes a long-term look at the prospects for Sunderland and for Nissan he will recognise that the right decision must be to build the new Micra in the north-east of England.
With regard to textiles, there is no getting away from the fact that this is a difficult time for parts of the textile industry. Owing to globalisation, new technology and restructuring, the textile industry in particular is under significant pressure. That is why the Government have introduced a package of measures worth over £10 million for the industry as a whole to assist it through this period. It includes measures to help exporters, to support design talent and to promote and develop new technological developments for the industry.
The plan is designed to enable the industry to adapt to the challenges of the knowledge economy. It includes Government support for the development and exploitation of technical textile materials. It provides programmes to help retrain workers who might be affected by decisions that have been taken on closures.

Mr. Bercow: rose—

Mr. Byers: I should like to finish the point on textiles.
There is a very important element here that people lose sight of. Because the textile industry is made up of many relatively small factories and plants, the level of support that the Government give to individual factories or individual companies is often seen as quite small compared with very large grants such as the one I have just mentioned in relation to Nissan in the north-east of England.
I have looked back at the support that we have given since we took office in May 1997 specifically for the textile industry, by way of regional selective assistance. That support has been in small am mints of money but given to a large number of companies. In total, more than £40 million has been given to textile companies. That has safeguarded or created 10,000 jobs in the sector and has led to investment by the companies of a further £250 million. That is a good example of how Government support of £40 million to the textile industry has triggered investment of £250 million in the sector, thereby safeguarding or creating 10,000 jobs.

Mr. David Drew: The right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) did not, of course, mention the Conservative party's aim of abolishing regional development agencies. My right hon. Friend knows that, in Dursley in my constituency, Lister-Petter has been kept going by the intervention of the South West regional development agency. Thanks to the help of my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Deputy Prime Minister, that is indicative of how supply-side changes are as important as demand-side changes. However, the Conservative party is pledged to remove regional development agencies. Will my right hon. Friend comment on that?

Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend makes a good and important point about the role that RDAs can play. That is an exceptionally good example of a positive and proactive approach that has led to employment opportunities for

many people in his constituency that would no longer exist had the RDA not been available to act as a catalyst to ensure that those jobs were protected.

Mr. Bercow: The Secretary of State's earlier remarks about the euro were woefully inadequate. Given that the governing council of the European central bank comprises three Germans, two Dutchmen, two Finns, two Frenchmen, two Italians, two Spaniards, a Belgian, an Irishman, a Luxembourger and a Portuguese, and that the European treaties as drafted specifically prohibit national Governments or Parliaments from seeking to influence its decisions, can the right hon. Gentleman explain why he is so eager to hand over power for the running of the British economy to people whom we do not elect, whom we cannot remove and whom it would be illegal to seek to persuade of the British point of view?

Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman has just made what I am sure he considers is a powerful argument for never joining the single European currency. Of course, that is not his party's policy. The Conservatives say that it does not agree with the structure but that they will rule it out for only five years and then we might join. They cannot have it both ways. Our party believes in joining a successful single currency, provided the economic conditions are right. That is the clear policy of the Labour party and of the Government, and I happen to believe that it is the right policy.

Mr. David Heath: The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of his interest in intervention when large-scale job losses are forecast. Does he agree that there is also a problem with smaller-scale job losses, such as the closure of Cuprinol in Frome? It is a successful brand, acquired by ICI, now relocated to Slough. The closure of another company, Bussmann and Cooper, means 430 job losses. In a town the size of Frome, that has a huge impact. Does he agree that large national and multinational companies should have some regard for the loyalty of the work forces who built their factories and made their brands a success when they make their strategic decisions?

Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman touches on two important points. One is the important role that relatively small factories in the grand scale of things can play within particular communities. He is right that the loss of a few hundred jobs in a small town can have a devastating impact, and we need to be acutely aware of that. Secondly, it is short-termism at its worst when multinationals, almost as a kneejerk reaction, close down smaller subsidiaries. Long-term planning is often the best way forward, and sometimes short-term decisions are taken which are not in the companies' long-term interests.
I should like to address the point about Corus raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones). As we meet this afternoon to discuss manufacturing, we are all acutely aware that thousands of workers in the steel industry are extremely concerned about their prospects. Last year, Corus replaced its joint chief executives because the two of them were not prepared to adopt a short-term approach to the problems faced by the company and the industry. They were not prepared to embark on plant closures and cuts in capacity. There is no doubt that Corus faces a challenging period.


Trading conditions in steel are difficult and the company will need to take steps to address the problems it faces. However, Corus needs to be aware that it will stand condemned of short-termism at its worst if its response is to close plants with the loss of thousands of jobs.
In the first nine months of trading as Corus, there was an operating loss of £96 million—clearly a state of affairs that any company could not ignore, but Corus is particularly affected by movements in exchange rates. Its operating profits closely track the sterling-deutschmark exchange. Little wonder that that is the case, when a 10 pfennig movement in the exchange rate with the pound affects operating profits by £80 million one way or the other.
The House needs to consider, as does Corus, what has happened over the past two months. In November, the pound was trading at DM3.26. Yesterday, the rate closed at DM3.06, or a fall of more than 20 pfennigs—resulting, by Corus' own calculations, in a saving to the company of some £160 million in just two months. The £8 million climate change levy pales into insignificance beside that. The Tory party is trying to play politics with the futures of a crucial industry, communities and thousands of workers.

Mr. Llew Smith: Earlier, the Minister accepted that the £8 million climate change levy was peanuts compared with what Corus has done to the company. Does he accept that £96 million is also peanuts compared with the £1.5 billion that Corus has asset-stripped from the company in different ways over the past two years?

Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend has an early-day motion on the Order Paper that makes highly effective points about the way the company has been operating. Over the next few days, many people will be turning their attention to the way in which Corus has been conducting itself in recent times.

Mr. Barry Jones: I am most grateful for the work being done by my right hon. Friend for steelworkers. Does he agree that Britain's manufacturing capability could be hugely impeded if Corus continues to dismantle its capability in Britain? I cannot see how a nation can be great when a company such as Corus takes away one of its foundation industries. Steel is greatness and a strategic industry.

Mr. Byers: My right hon. Friend has been a great champion of the steel industry in general and of the Shotton works in particular over more years than I should remind him of. Starting in 1973, he brought delegations to the House to argue strongly the case for the steel industry. My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point about the industry's significance, which makes it important that Corus should not take short-term decisions over the next few days but look to the long term.
My right hon. and hon. Friends believe that this country's steel industry has a long-term viable future. Its workers have shown a long-term commitment by improving productivity dramatically in recent years. Steelworkers and the Government call on Corus to deliver the same level of commitment to the industry at this time. Corus should not be defeatist. It should not embark on a

short-term approach but plan for the long term, in which there is a viable future for the steel industry in the United Kingdom.
There is no doubt in the Government's mind that manufacturing has an important role. We have done much already to support manufacturing by providing economic stability and we continue to do so. Manufacturing matters to this Government and to our country. Once the cradle of the industrial revolution, we can now be at the heart of the knowledge economy at the beginning of the 21st century. Manufacturing faces considerable change, driven by globalisation and the spread of new technology. That calls for an active Government who work positively with industry to ensure that our people can manage the process of change and seize the new opportunities that will come from it.
There will be difficult decisions, but we will face them, working with the communities and the industries affected to build a new future where that is necessary. That is the challenge. To meet it, we need stability, not a return to boom and bust, and full employment, not mass unemployment; we need to invest in the building blocks for a dynamic industry—not the cuts proposed by the Opposition. We have a commitment to build strong communities, not a belief that there is no such thing as society. We are a Government on the side of the people, not a Government who leave them to the market to fend for themselves.
That is the approach of the Government and I commend it to the House.

Dr. Vincent Cable: The motion helpfully identifies a real problem. I broadly subscribe to the view that the British economy is generally in good shape in respect of inflation and growth in output and employment. However, it is clear that in the parts of our economy involved in international trade—notably manufacturing, but also agriculture, trade and services such as tourism—there is great distress, some of which is typified by the events at Llanwern today. It is right that we focus on that. I agree with the motion's highlighting—albeit in a rather exaggerated way—of the problems and costs of regulation.
None the less, aspects of the motion puzzle me. The punch line is a call for an industrial strategy. That sounds like the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) during his heyday in the 1960s; if there was a problem in industry, one created an industrial strategy. One of the better lessons of the Conservative years is that industrial strategy is created by companies and not by Ministers and Government officials.
I am also puzzled by the fact that the motion specifically highlights the loss of 300,000 jobs in manufacturing industry. That invites the obvious riposte: according to House of Commons figures, 3 million jobs have been lost in manufacturing industry since 1979. That process is continuous; it is not inherently a matter to be alarmed about, because 4 million jobs have been created in other sectors. Because of productivity growth, manufacturing employment in most industrial economies is declining. The matter is important only if one believes that manufacturing is fundamentally different from the rest of the economy.
I think that the first person to advocate that theory with any conviction was Marx; he believed that manufacturing creates surplus value and that services are rather parasitic.


However, we no longer believe that argument these days—I should certainly be surprised if such a belief was held by a right-wing party. It would surprise me if the Conservatives held that view—especially given the fact that the share of manufacturing in the United States economy is about half that in Japan and no one could seriously suggest that the United States is a less successful country than Japan.
Manufacturing is important in this context because it is the largest sector of our economy involved in international trade. It shares its problems with farming, tourism and other traded sectors. It would be helpful if we could get away from the mechanical distinction between manufacturing and other parts of the economy. I often refer to the Twickenham shipbuilding industry, because although we have no shipyards in Twickenham, much of the value-added in the industry is created in London suburbs by designers sitting at computers. With information technology, manufacturing and service industries have become completely interconnected.
My starting point is slightly different from that of the Conservatives. In many respects, the British economy is doing relatively well—certainly in regard to the past and to comparable economies—but it is extremely unbalanced: one large sector, involved in international trade, is seriously under-performing. We can see that in various ways.
The investment indicators for industry from the CBI and others suggest that manufacturing investment declined by about 15 per cent. last year. That has not remotely been cancelled by this year's moderate recovery. The CBI's evidence on investment intention shows a continued negative outlook in industry. Although there is plenty of evidence that output growth is relatively strong in the whole economy, it is below 1 per cent. in manufacturing, and has been for the past few years.
There are two basic reasons why the traded bits of the economy are under-performing in many ways, and they have already been mentioned in the debate. At the centre of the Conservative party's argument is the idea that the problem is entirely caused by regulation. Clearly, that is an issue, but if regulation is the problem, why is not the same pain being experienced in other parts of the economy? After all, the working time directive and similar regulations apply across the board, but we are discussing the fact that a key sector of the economy is under-performing relative to the others. Nevertheless, it is useful to reflect on some of the problems that regulation brings.
I have an example that explains, with some clarity, why the issue exists. Last week, I was approached by representatives of the compressor industry. They are the people who make pneumatic drills and equipment with pneumatic action—an important part of industry. Workers are genuinely concerned about a health problem in the industry. If people work with high-pressure drills, they experience extreme vibrations, which affect the nervous system and their hearing. Clearly, strong health protection is needed. As a result of that problem, the Health and Safety Executive recommended that a regulation should be introduced to put a specific quantitative limit on the amount of vibration that could occur.
Full of enthusiasm, the Government ran off to the European Union and got all the other member states to sign up to a directive, binding across Europe. It was then

pointed out that they had gone about the directive in an unhelpful way and that the same objectives could be achieved at far less cost through a different way of defining the regulation. Obviously, they had not consulted the companies.
The British officials set off, chasing around Europe trying to withdraw the directive that they had initiated, but I understand that it is now too late and the directive will come into effect, unnecessarily costing industry about £2 billion over 10 years. The symptoms are always there—no consultation and a lack of proper impact assessment—although in this case a study showed that the costs outweighed the benefits by about 7:1. However, such things happen every week, which is a real problem.
Reference has been made to the climate change levy, but it has not yet had any impact because it has not yet happened. We are stuck with a rather sterile controversy, because the argument is that some people want to do nothing about climate change and the specific proposal of the climate change levy. The Government know that there are other ways to act and that if they had introduced, by stages, an upstream carbon tax, applied throughout the economy, related to the carbon content of product, they could have achieved all their objectives without the discriminatory burden on manufacturing industry, but they pressed ahead with it.
I acknowledge that there are regulatory problems and costs, which are often insensitively applied, but none of us would seriously argue that that is why manufacturing and the rest of the traded bits of the economy are now struggling in a way that the service sector is not. What is the problem? As the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry briefly suggested, the problem relates specifically to the workings of the exchange rates, but not, as the Conservative spokesman said, simply to the euro-sterling exchange rate. Korea is the steel industry's main, efficient competitor, and there has been an enormous divergence between the appreciation of sterling and the depreciation of the Korean won. That is why Korean steel massively undercuts British steel; it is largely due to the enormous movements in the exchange rate.

Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman wants to talk about the fluctuations in exchange rates and the effects thereof, but he cannot be allowed so speedily to skip away from the subject of regulation. Given that more than 99 per cent. of British companies employ fewer than 100 people, that they account for 57 per cent. of the private work force and that they produce two fifths of national output, can he tell us whether he signs up to the deregulatory agenda that the Conservative party has announced? In particular, can he tell the House, with all the authority of the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, what assessment he has made of the American Regulatory Flexibility Act and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act?

Dr. Cable: I am sure the hon. Gentleman is well read and has digested my report on unnecessary regulation. It has been endorsed and enthusiastically supported by the Federation of Small Businesses, no less, not just because it sets out an appropriate deregulatory agenda, but because it does something that he and his colleagues rarely do, which is to be specific. My party has identified 25 major categories of unnecessary regulation. Clearly, regulation


is needed to protect workers, consumers and the environment, but some of it is unnecessary, and we have tried to identify where that is the case. I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to highlight that matter.
The enormous divergence in exchange rates is not simply a matter of the respective rates of the euro against the dollar and sterling. Figures published by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development show that sterling has appreciated since, I think, 1995, to the extent that Britain has now lost competitiveness, in terms of the unit cost of labour, by about 45 per cent. However, Korea has gained in competitiveness by about 20 per cent. The eurozone as a whole has gained in competitiveness by 15 or 20 per cent. Those are enormous margins. No conceivable improvement in productivity at a factory level will offset that, no matter how hard working the employees or inspired the management.
The central issue is how we make exchange rates stable so that we stop the divergence, and some hon. Members have touched on that matter. That consideration goes to the heart of our position on the European currency. When we argued two years ago that British industry would incur costs because of the lack of clarity on economic and monetary union, we were laughed at and told that we were crying wolf. However, we now have concrete examples to support our stance.
The Nissan management made it clear that its decision to locate new production in either Sunderland or France will be heavily based on being confident that Britain will enter the common euro area. It specifically stated that any industrial incentives or grants will be a secondary consideration. More important in the long term was the statement by Ford of Europe a couple of weeks ago in which it said that unless it is clear that Britain will be part of the European monetary union area by 2006, it will not remain in this country. That employer directly provides 50,000 jobs, and that number can be doubled or trebled if one considers its subsidiary activities. Those are clear and explicit statements by important manufacturers.

Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman will no doubt have read the report by the Institute of Directors, which comments on the relationship between sterling and the euro. It says that the two currencies are merely ships that pass in the night. Consequently, will he argue, as he is at the moment, for our entry into EMU when the euro is strong and the pound is weak and, accordingly, British manufacturing is competitive?

Dr. Cable: The hon. Gentleman might know that I co-authored a report that received considerable publicity. The group was chaired by the Liberal Democrat MEP, Christopher Huhne, and involved members of the Monetary Policy Committee. It set out what an appropriate competitive exchange rate would be for the United Kingdom. I have read the report by the Institute of Directors. I do not agree with it, but I refer the hon. Gentleman to a more authoritative and less polemical organisation, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research. It argued within the past few weeks that clear evidence exists of a high level of convergence with the British economy.
My criticism of the Government is that, although they are clearly carrying out tests on such matters in private, they will not discuss them with us, perhaps for good

political reasons. However, a mature debate would certainly help to clarify the position of the British manufacturing industry. We need to discuss whether we are converging, which was the point raised by the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), and to consider the evidence, but we are not doing that; there is no public debate. The Government have been remiss in that sense.
I approach the issue by acknowledging that, in many respects in the conduct of macro-economic policy, the Government can reasonably claim—even though four years is a very short time in economic history—that the problems of boom and bust have been substantially reduced, except in respect of the boom and bust associated with the exchange rate. That problem is still with us and it is severe. That is why we are debating the substantial blows to manufacturing industry that have occurred recently.

Mr. Ken Purchase: Manufacturing is doing well if not doing great, which is what we want it to do.
We are debating a Conservative party motion and my first thought was what a brass neck it was for the Tories to table a motion about manufacturing industry. That seems a contradiction in terms. After 18 years in which great damage was done to British manufacturing, Conservatives Members come to the House today to castigate the record of the Labour Government.
Let me appeal across the divide and remind Conservative Members that, during that dreadful period for British manufacturing under their governance, a Minister eventually came into office who cared about British manufacturing and exports. I refer to Richard Needham, who was the sole salvation of any semblance of a Conservative party policy for manufacturing and the important role that it plays in exports. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade who has not just carried on with that work, but brought to it an enthusiasm worthy of the exporting traditions on which this country has depended and continues to depend.
The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) compared the United States, Japan and the United Kingdom. I remind him that the USA exports about 7 per cent. of its gross domestic product and, strangely, has done for most of the past century. Over the same period, the United Kingdom has exported about 20 per cent. of its GDP, and the overwhelming majority of our exports have been manufactured products. We cannot compare this country with the USA and Japan, because we are still very dependent or the manufacturing sector, which contributes more to our balance of payments than any other industry or set vice sector in this country.
British Trade International, which is now Trade Partners UK, has made a good start to boosting British exports, especially those from the manufacturing sector. I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department of Trade and Industry on the work that they are doing to make joined-up Government a reality for the policy on exports. I know that many have tried that before, but we now take a more coherent view and take a more sensible policy approach to the issue.
I hope that, after the debate, the Conservative party will rediscover some of its former glory and recall the time when it greatly assisted British manufacturing industry.


Many of the great industries established in the 19th and 20th centuries were set up by the Conservative party's friends—the people we call "the captains of industry".
We need a consensus on the vital question of industry. I unashamedly appeal to Conservative Members to join us in creating coherent and comprehensive policies for manufacturing that will assist our exporting efforts.

Mr. Nigel Evans: The hon. Gentleman suggests that we should have a consensus on what we can do to improve manufacturing industry, so will he have a word with his colleagues about the climate change levy? He must admit that it will have an enormous impact on manufacturing industry in this country.

Mr. Purchase: I accept that manufacturers in this country and others complain when any extra costs are added to their bottom line and I understand the reasons for that. I believe that my colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry are working hard to find ways in which to take account of the understandable concerns and sentiments expressed by manufacturers, especially those that are already highly energy efficient, but I accept the hon. Gentleman's comments and recognise that more work is needed. None the less, I support the climate change levy: we have to take some action in that respect, not only for our own sake, but for the sake of our neighbours worldwide.
We have developed an impressive toolkit with which to assist the regeneration of manufacturing. Much of the selective assistance that has been made available is doing good work. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned that in recent years £60 million has been made available via that route. That is welcome. I am not one of those who believes that industry can be left to its own devices. We live in an increasingly competitive world in which every other country values its manufacturing industry and does all it can to develop it. Woe betide Britain if we do not take similar—indeed, better—action to support our own manufacturing industry.
In this country we have a significant problem regarding investment. We have a system of stock markets, shareholding and company profits that defies the logic that is applied by many overseas companies within their own countries, whereby they retain profits for long-term investment. The pressure on our managers is to deliver dividends. There has to be a change of mind to ensure fairer distribution between distributed and retained profits—and, I say to my Treasury Ministers, to ensure the best possible treatment of those retained profits. Only in that way will we get self-generated investment in our industries.
That has not happened in Britain in the past. Often, hon. Members who visit old manufacturing companies in their constituencies see machinery that must have been fetched up from the sea bed after the first world war—it is pretty dreadful. On the other hand, we have good companies that have modernised and invested because they recognise that only investment in the manufacturing process can bring the competitive edge that they need to compete successfully on world markets.
In British industry—perhaps throughout the whole of Britain—management is not really our strong point. More needs to be done in terms of management education and training. Not that long ago, a management guru who used

to control ICI was asked whether his managers were on MBA programmes and taking other opportunities to improve their management skills. He replied, "MBA programmes? I'd be pleased if any of them could read a balance sheet!" Such a comment from a director of a major company about middle and upper management in British industry is damning indeed. We have not made the progress that we need in our universities and colleges in terms of developing MBA courses and related management skills courses.

Mr. Laurence Robertson: The hon. Gentleman has touched on an important subject in talking about youngsters taking MBAs and so on, but does he agree that perhaps too many people take that route and not enough take up industrial training, given that many companies are finding it extremely difficult to recruit either trainees or trained people?

Mr. Purchase: The hon. Gentleman hits on a very good point, to which I was about to turn. If proper leadership and management are lacking, the potential of employees—even of those who have the best technical skills—is never realised. That is part of the sad story of the failure of British manufacturing: leadership has been lacking. We have been responsible for some of the finest inventions that the world has ever seen, but we have failed to bring them to the marketplace. That has usually happened because of lack of money for innovation, lack of vision among those who should be leading and damned poor management at plant level. We must attend to management and marketing skills. When one talks about marketing to some managers, one might as well be speaking Esperanto. Above-the-line and below-the-line campaigns mean nothing. It is pathetic that we often have good products, workers and even investment, but still do not go to the marketplace with all our guns blazing. We must take those matters very seriously.
We need managers with technical and financial skills. Too often, our best engineers are promoted on to boards where they find themselves completely outmanoeuvred by accountants who do not know anything about the fundamentals of engineering. Such people might know an awful lot about the bottom line of the company without understanding the need to modernise and to build up skills and capital investment.
In the three or four minutes that remain, I should like to turn to two pressing matters in my constituency. I shall not apologise for speaking about them, as they illustrate the difficulties about which I have been speaking: lack of leadership, poor investment and other such problems. There have been massive redundancies in the Goodyear tyre factory in Wolverhampton. I waive towards the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) at this point. People who were made redundant and do not have transferable skills will not get jobs, but those with high skills that are transferable will do so. There are massive skills shortages that we have not properly or fully addressed.
Workers at the Chubb safe company met yesterday to complain about the fact that the company has been taken over yet again, for the third time in just a few years, and that the manufacture of safes is now to cease. Chubb safes have the greatest reputation in the world for quality. Indeed, the company still makes the finest safes in the world, but it is being closed down. Perhaps the safe


making will be transferred to Indonesia, after which it might be brought back to Wolverhampton, so that the safes can be rebadged with the words "Chubb Wolverhampton" to suit the insurance markets. It is an absolute disgrace.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is not now in his place; I know that he has to take a rest from time to time. However, I plead with him to recognise that this country needs a different takeover and competition law regime. We also need a regime within the plants and the factories to ensure that it is not easy come, easy go. Those who take over and buy companies must give a commitment to the workers and ensure that their rights are properly protected. I know that we have made considerable moves on the reform of trade union law. We are going in the right direction, but we have to do more and do it more quickly.
The biggest grouse from Chubb workers in Wolverhampton last night concerned the reason why Chubb—or Gunnebo, as it is now called—could move out of Britain just like that, when companies that try to close down in Sweden or any other European Community country must adhere to specific processes and consult in good time with their workers and staff. We need such laws here. If it is right to ensure a level playing field in finance and so on, we should also ensure one for workers' rights, so that our workers can compete fairly and properly with the rest of the world. If they are given that opportunity, they will not fail us.

Mr. Laurence Robertson: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Gentleman, who I think represents Wolverhampton, South-East.

Mr. Purchase: North-East.

Mr. Robertson: Sorry, I mean the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase), who demonstrated a great knowledge of industry and its failings. He referred in particular to some of the weak management in industry. I do not need to declare an interest, but I worked in industry for most of the 18 years of Tory rule to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I shall return to that subject shortly.
I worked for the textile industry for many years. It faced many pressures and its decline is sad. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that its management was not all that it should have been. We must accept that if manufacturing industry is to return to, or at least approach, its former glories it must be managed better than in the past. That does not apply to all manufacturing industry, some of which is managed extremely well.
I disagree with the earlier part of the hon. Gentleman's speech, in which he referred to 18 years of mismanagement by the Tory Administration. I worked in industry in the 1980s and in the 1970s. Anyone who criticises the Conservative Government's record on industry should compare the two decades. In the 1970s, some disgraceful things went on; it is no wonder that so many jobs were lost. Jobs were lost in the 1980s and the 1990s, but many were also lost in the 1970s.
Worse than the terrible demonstrations of union power in the 1970s was management's fear of managing. That emphasises how desperate matters were in industry in those days. I am proud that the Conservative Government introduced changes to trade union law and other changes that transformed industry. I would dispute the case with anyone who claimed that the predicament of manufacturing was worse after 1979 than before. It is simply not true.
I am sorry that the Secretary of State is not here, but he cannot be here all the time. His speech was contradictory. He referred to many job losses that happened in 1991–92 in what he accurately described as a recession. It was a terrible recession, which affected the businesses that I was trying to help. The small business that I ran then had a difficult time in 1991, which was probably the worst year of my working life. I therefore fully appreciate the pain.
The Conservative Government participated in a European experiment called the exchange rate mechanism, which was a disaster from which they never recovered. The Secretary of State would say that the right convergence criteria did not exist then, and that we went in at the wrong rate. There is no such thing as the wrong rate—whatever the rate, it was right but the system was wrong. The Secretary of State acknowledges that the pound is now even stronger against some currencies. Joining the single currency would therefore lock us into the wrong system for ever: not for Christmas, not for a few weeks, not for two years—the period after which we left the ERM with great pain—but for ever.
The Secretary of State listed all the companies that he claims have brought jobs to this country—if they have, I welcome that. He quoted from The Sun; I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) takes it daily. He quoted the words:
Britain is the best place in the world to do business.
However, the right hon. Gentleman contemplates taking us into the single currency when there is no need to do that. If we joined, we would lose control over our interest rates, and be in exactly the same position as we were in the 1991 recession, which the Secretary of State condemned. I stress that his words are contradictory and simply do not make sense.
I want to consider one or two other matters, which I raised in an Adjournment debate some months ago, such is my interest in manufacturing industry. I agree with the Secretary of State about the importance of manufacturing industry to the country. I shall deal with jobs shortly.
The Secretary of State rightly referred to the industrial revolution. It happened a long time ago, but it was important because it created wealth. When manufacturing developed in terms of mechanisation, automation and productivity, we all became better off. We all know how much cheaper electrical goods are now, relatively speaking, than they were some years ago. Productivity improvements in the manufacturing rather than the service sector mean that we are more prosperous and have more goods.
Sadly, as has been said, many manufacturing jobs have been lost. In 1950, 8.3 million people were employed in manufacturing; now the figure is only 4 million at the most. Whereas in 1950, 41 per cent. of the work force were in manufacturing jobs, only 16 per cent. are in such jobs now. That is partly, but not wholly, due to the


improvements in productivity, mechanisation and automation that I mentioned. The manufacturing share of gross domestic product has also declined, from 37 per cent. in 1950 to 20 per cent. today.
I have mentioned my concern about the textile industry. It remains, but it dates from the time when I lived in the north-west. Now that I represent Tewkesbury, I am particularly concerned about the aerospace industry, although it is doing well and receiving many orders. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East mentioned takeovers and mergers, which I think the Government should consider in detail. There were competition worries when British Aerospace merged with Marconi Electronic Systems not long ago, and I wish that they had been examined more thoroughly.
When noting the big orders that the industry may receive, will the Government also give careful attention to the assistance that foreign Governments give companies in their countries? I know that we have competition laws throughout Europe, but I am not entirely convinced that they are being obeyed.
There are different ways of helping industries. There is the launch aid project; and Governments in other countries, especially France, provide subsidies and other help. The Government should be aware of that. If we are to have a level playing field in Europe, we must have a level playing field in every sense of the term. I am not sure that our aerospace companies receive the same kind of help as aerospace companies in other countries. That is of great concern to aerospace companies in my constituency—Smiths Industries, Mossier Dowty, Dowty Aerospace Propellers, Ultra Hydraulics and others. Smaller companies supplying those firms are also very concerned.
In an intervention on the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East, I mentioned the problems experienced by many manufacturing companies in recruiting both trainees and experienced staff. I understand from figures supplied by the House of Commons Library that about 48 per cent. of school leavers are going on to university. I am pleased that many people now go to university—I did not, and I greatly regret it—but when so many are being educated, and industry and, for instance, the technical side of the national health service cannot attract staff, something is not quite right.
The Government can do many things to help the manufacturing industries, but the biggest thing they can do is stay out of the way. We have heard a great deal about competition with companies in Europe, and the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) spoke about the difficulties of competing with companies further afield—I think that he mentioned Korea. Therefore, the last thing we need is the Government piling more and more regulation and taxes on to industry in this country. That is the most stupid thing that anyone could imagine.
The Government have already introduced the climate change levy, as it is euphemistically called. It is actually a tax on energy, and many companies have no option but to use the energy sources involved. If one is deeply concerned about the environment, as I am, and wants to persuade people not to do something, one should provide them with an alternative rather dim tax them. In the absence of an alternative, they will not stop doing what they are doing, no matter how much one taxes them.

If we have not realised that in relation to the duty that is added to petrol, it is about time that we started to learn a bit more quickly.
Many of the other laws and taxes that the Government have imposed on businesses have hit industry particularly hard. Such regulations and taxes should be abolished. If the Government are serious about helping the manufacturing industries, the best thing they could do is to stop hindering them by imposing more taxes and laws, which is the last thing they need.

Mr. Eric Joyce: I am grateful for this opportunity to address the House so soon after being returned as the Member for Falkirk, West.
Hon. Members might know that my predecessor, Mr. Dennis Canavan, continues to serve the Falkirk, West constituency in his new capacity as the Member of the Scottish Parliament for our area. That adds an extra element of interest to my job and to my new professional life. I notice that in his maiden speech, Mr. Canavan referred to his predecessor as someone who was very independent-minded. That was true, and it is fair to say that during his own career in the House, Mr. Canavan emulated his predecessor in considerable style.
Mr. Canavan made many contributions while he was here, most notably perhaps on issues of international development and foreign affairs. He also argued the case strongly and vigorously for the creation of a devolved Scottish Parliament. His career here followed an arguable logic, and he is now in the appropriate place. I look forward to developing a good, solid working relationship with such an experienced parliamentarian over the coming months and years.
The manufacturing industry of the United Kingdom is important to the people of Falkirk, West, as it is to everyone else in the UK. Another of my predecessors, now the noble Lord Ewing, referred in 1971 to the Falkirk area—in which my present constituency is located—as solely an iron town. He was referring to the ironworks that provided a great deal of employment in the area over the years, and that led to "Falkirk" being stamped on many iron objects across the world today, including cannon in India and Pakistan and the engine blocks of many ships—some still sailing, some long out of service.
Since 1971, in just one generation, the ironworks of Falkirk has been in decline, like the mining industry of central Scotland, and has now closed. Unemployment in my constituency is therefore a considerable enemy today. However, it has fallen sharply in the past few years, and continues to do so, primarily for two reasons. First, some of the secondary industries, the manufacturing industries related to the former iron industry, continue to be very successful—most notably Alexanders, the bus builder, which maintains a strong export order book and whose buses will soon be seen on the streets of New York for the first time.
Although unemployment is still a problem in Falkirk, and there is a great deal further to go, there has been a sharp decline recently. The second reason for that is the expansion of service industries, particularly telecommunications, east along the central Scottish belt towards and beyond Falkirk. Very soon, a new telecoms centre will be established in Falkirk, providing some 700 jobs. That is clearly greatly to be welcomed.
In both industrial sectors, the people of Falkirk are responding well to the new challenges of change. We are extremely well served in that by our local tertiary education institution, Falkirk college, which I believe is a college of the first order. The challenge for individuals and for colleges such as Falkirk is to ensure that workers and future workers develop strong core literacy, numeracy and technological awareness skills, which will enable them to compete on the job market, enable the local economy to compete and, ultimately, enable the national economy to compete on the world market.
Equally, employers have a responsibility to ensure that they involve themselves in that local and national economic and human development. That means taking a close interest in the content of the courses taught in our schools and colleges and also involves the way in which employers run their firms. That means intelligent governance based on sound partnership with the work force, unions and, of course, the local community.
Stretching the indulgence of the House a tad further, may I refer to local heritage in Falkirk, West, which is important because it provides a great many jobs? Falkirk is the home of perhaps Scotland's finest municipal park, Callendar park, and the Antonine wall built by the Romans runs the length of the constituency. The same geographical logic that led to its construction also led to two famous engagements—famous in Scotland, at least. The battles of Falkirk took place in the Jacobite period and, much earlier, in the time of William Wallace.
In addition, and on a more contemporary note, my constituency is unique in Scotland, and possibly the United Kingdom, in having not one nor two but three senior football teams and two junior teams. One team, Falkirk FC, is, I hope, about to get a brand new stadium.
Added to all that will be the Falkirk wheel. Many hon. Members may not have heard of it, but, when it is completed next year, it will represent one of the finest engineering achievements of the early 21st century. The Falkirk wheel will connect two canals that do not quite meet. They run from east to west—or west to east, depending on the direction in which people travel—across Scotland. People will be able to sail from one to the other, although I do not know whether I should call what people do in boats that go along canals sailing; and, again depending on the direction in which people travel, they will be either lifted or dropped 130 ft in one smooth motion. That remarkable achievement will add considerably to the economic life and physical landscape of Falkirk, West. I am sure that every Member present will want to see the wheel, and I can organise a visit should Members so choose.
The people of Falkirk, West look forward to the developing 21st century with considerable optimism, but never complacency, especially in respect of jobs and our manufacturing, engineering and service industries. I am proud to have been allowed to make my maiden speech on such an important topic, and I thank hon. Members for the way in which they have received me.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: It is a privilege to take part in this powerful debate, which has featured good contributions from the hon. Member for Wolverhampton,

North-East (Mr. Purchase), who always speaks on such matters, and my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson). In particular, it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce), who made his maiden speech. I shall take up his invitation to see the big wheel of Falkirk as I am a keen narrow boater; in May, I am going off to the Llangollen canal. I believe that the canals connected by the Falkirk wheel link Edinburgh to Glasgow, or, as he might put it, Glasgow to Edinburgh, depending on the direction in which people happen to travel.
The hon. Gentleman had a military career before being elected and his experience will be useful to the House. He mentioned that his predecessor was independent-minded. I hope that he will be too and will eventually drift down to the Bench below the Gangway to sit next to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), where truly independent-minded Members sit. I note that the Government Whip is looking rather nervous at the prospect.
As I said, it is rather disappointing that events earlier today may overshadow the importance of our debate. None the less, it is a particularly important debate. The Secretary of State said over and over as a mantra, "manufacturing matters". He tried to back up the fact that the Labour party and Government care about manufacturing by quoting from this morning's edition of The Sun. He sometimes quotes from that newspaper, but it is interesting that he decided not to quote from today's front page.
The Secretary of State made the point that the climate change levy is peanuts. He may think so, but that is not what the industry says. Car manufacturing in the United Kingdom is at a crucial point in its history. I have been in the Chamber for the past few hours—as we all have—so I do not know wt ether a decision has been made yet by the owners of Nissan. That decision is important: workers at the Nissan Sunderland plant may hear shortly that they have won a key contract, which would safeguard thousands of jobs. However, if members of the Nissan board have voted today that they will site the new Micra plant in France, that will mean huge job losses. That will affect not just the 4,900 workers in Sunderland, but everyone working in the ailing UK car industry. I do not share the Secretary of State's optimism.
We have already seen the closure of the Ford car manufacturing plant in Dagenham, which was announced only a few weeks ago. It seems almost certain that the Vauxhall plant at Luton will close. When the Secretary of State was asked in the Chamber whether he envisaged closure of the Luton plant, he could not answer. He gave a cry that is common among Ministers—"Not me, guv: not my responsibility"—and said that that would be a commercial decision. However, the climate that the Government are creating for car manufacturing is influencing those decisions.

Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: I remind the hon. Gentleman that, earlier today, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State sad that he was using his influence to try to persuade Vauxhall to keep its plant in Luton open. I certainly encourage my right hon. Friend in that.

Mr. Fabricant: That is the least that I would expect from the right hon. Gentleman. However, at the same


time, he says that the matter has nothing to do with him: the two statements are in direct conflict with one another and, frankly, make no sense at all.
The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders says that the current rate of output in car manufacturing is disappointing. It says that that is
partly due to a lot of plant restructuring programmes.
It continues:
In the short-term, things are not looking good.
That is primarily because of the climate change levy, about which I spoke a little earlier.
Martin Temple of the Engineering Employers Federation said:
We have never opposed the need for action on climate change, but believe the Levy to be one of the most badly designed economic instruments in recent times.
Martin Temple is right, and if people want to know why, it is because of a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) in his opening speech. A firm such as Sony, which is far-reaching and green-conscious and has already invested money in making its plant one of the healthiest and safest in Europe, will still pay the climate change levy and will receive no refund.
It makes no sense at all to put companies in that position. Such an arrangement acts as a disincentive for firms such as Sony that want to play a real part in the community of nations which seeks to enhance our lives and those of future generations. The levy is a disincentive for those firms to invest in plant that minimises emissions of greenhouse gases.
Nick Turner of Ernst and Young's environmental and sustainability services group said:
There is no doubt that the climate change levy will penalise a number of manufacturing enterprises in the UK, particularly those who have made considerable improvements to their energy efficiency prior to the introduction of the levy.
Sony, in south Wales, is in that very position.
The Secretary of State mentioned The Sun, which is of course a part of the Murdoch empire. However, he chose not to mention The Times although it is in the same stable, at Wapping. The Times has highlighted the fact that small businesses will be the biggest losers arising from the levy. It states:
Those who have not followed the levy through its various transformations may be shocked that the smokestack end of industry fares rather better than the rest,
The article also points out the irony that
Massive users of energy, such as steel, cement, glass and chemicals industries can strike deals with the Government to reduce levy charges by up to 80 per cent. in return for meeting targets to cut energy use. Many other businesses,
such as those in the car industry, cannot strike such deals.
I should like to deal with the statement made by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders. As I mentioned in an earlier intervention, the society has said that
the Climate Change Levy will result in substantial increases in production costs for the UK motor industry. Net energy costs are estimated to increase by 10 to 15 per cent—

which we should consider in relation to changes in the euro-sterling exchange rate or, perhaps equally relevantly, the sterling-dollar rate—
for vehicle and component manufacturers as a result of the levy.
The statement continues:
In a globally competitive market it is not possible to pass on these cost increases, and there are fears that UK based businesses will lose out as a consequence.
We are seeing just such an effect. Time and again, we see on television advertisements for cars that are heavily discounted or available for hire-purchase at zero interest. Around the world, it is a competitive industry. We must never forget that the United Kingdom is a great manufacturing nation and a great exporter. However, is it not disappointing that, since 1997, we have dropped from being the fourth to the 10th most competitive nation, and that we are still falling? Such a change can offer no comfort at all to UK manufacturers, including those, such as Toyota, that are near my constituency.
I welcome Toyota's decision to move Corolla production to Derby. However, when I asked the Secretary of State whether he would like to say something about the far-reaching strategic talks between Ford and Toyota, which could result in a major merger between them in the United Kingdom and elsewhere, he declined. A merger could have a traumatic effect on the car manufacturing industry not only in the United Kingdom but in other parts of the world. It was disappointing that, yet again, he simply said, "Not me, Guy; it's not my business. It's a commercial decision."

Mr. Miller: I appreciate the fact that the hon. Gentleman has recognised that there is a problem in the vehicle manufacturing industry throughout the world. Will he join me in firm criticism of the way in which General Motors has handled the situation in the UK?

Mr. Fabricant: Yes. General Motors will have made its commercial decision—now I am sounding like the Secretary of State—but the way in which it dealt with its staff showed a lack of finesse and of modern management practice. At least Ford at Dagenham discussed the issue with the staff before making its announcement. I know how the Vauxhall workers felt, because quite often I turn up at the House and hear about what the Government are doing because it has been announced on radio and television first. Those workers heard the news first on radio and television and were not consulted beforehand, and of course that is wrong.
The Government continue to say that they are not responsible for the state of manufacturing in the UK, but I refer them to the excellent British Chambers of Commerce website, which publishes a "burdens barometer". I will rattle through the list, but I promise to give Hansard a copy of the table.
The costs are as follows: trade union recognition, £15.2 million; ordinary maternity leave, £4.5 million: wider entitlement to additional maternity leave, £35 million; parental leave, £72 million; right to time off, £17.25 million; right to be accompanied in a dispute, £4.6 million; part-time workers directive, £29.4 million; national minimum wage, £674.5 million; stakeholder pensions, £200 million; working time directive, £7.65 billion; working families tax credit, £240 million; student loan repayment, £359 million; young people's time


off for studying and training, £237.5 million; fire precautions regulations, £37.5 million; European works councils, £36.25 million; IR35, £5.4 million.
That makes a whopping £9.62 billion. The Government say that manufacturing matters, time and time again, but in practice, while the Government spin, manufacturing sinks.

Mr. Richard Burden: I add my welcome to my new hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce). I am sure that he will be an asset to the House. Like the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), I learned something new today, about the Falkirk wheel. I am sure that a succession of people will go up to see it, and that its legend will go down in the annals of the House.
Let me update the House on the situation at MG Rover. Despite the cynics whom we heard last year, many of them Conservative Members, the company is on course to meet its business plan. It is bringing out a range of new models, or new variants, this year. Nothing in an industry as ruthlessly competitive as the automotive industry is assured, but MG Rover now has a solid basis on which to go forward.
There are a couple of lessons to be learned from that: first, do not take inherited or conventional wisdom for granted, because things can change; secondly, we should congratulate all those involved, including the management and the work force in my constituency, on what they have achieved; and thirdly, in contrast to what was being said by the Conservative party last year, we should also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the support that he has offered throughout.
The welcome developments at MG Rover and Jaguar, the new investment at Toyota and, we hope, good news from Nissan, demonstrate that the automotive industry has some real successes to celebrate. I hope that the regeneration moneys that have been pledged by the Government for three technology corridors—one of which, down the A38, is very relevant to my constituency—will not only reinforce and modernise the motor industry in the midlands but help to diversify the region's economy.
We know about the problems that have arisen elsewhere in the automotive industry—at the Ford plant in Dagenham, and at the Vauxhall plant in Luton. The way in which BMW sought to dispose of Rover last year, and Vauxhall's lack of consultation with its work force about its decisions with regard to Luton, raise real questions about the adequacy of employee rights in this country to consultation and information. That problem needs to be tackled, either by European action, or by means of domestic legislation, which is the route that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State prefers.
When Conservative Members talk about regulation, they must recognise that there is a need to address the question of information and consultation in an appropriate legislative form. Indeed, the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) said that he did not approve of the way in which General Motors had behaved.

Mr. Miller: My hon. Friend will know of my background and of my involvement in the creation of

some European-wide works councils. Does he accept that there is greater stability in those companies where consultation is genuine and where business decisions are discussed with the trade unions in confidence? In turn, that benefits the employers through better productivity.

Mr. Burden: My hon. Friend makes his point very well.
It is important to mention some success stories, and one of them is the success of Britain's motor sport and performance engineering industry. Britain leads the world in that sector. New research from the Motorsport Industry Association shows that the industry is worth about £4.8 billion to the economy. It employs 40,000 people, and makes a real contribution to our knowledge-driven economy.
That presents a huge opportunity, but we must not rest on our laurels. The industry in the UK has grown to a position of strength, but that will not necessarily last for ever. We must look at some of the problems that may arise in the future.
First, there is the question of personnel. Problems of skill shortages persist, and we must do all that we can to ensure that the industry has the supply of skilled personnel that it needs to prosper in the future. Today's statement from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment stressed the importance of manufacturing and vocational training, and will certainly help in that regard. Moreover, the process works both ways. By promoting the motor sport industry, and similar enterprises, we will begin to attract more people into the manufacturing and engineering sectors.
Secondly, the industrial infrastructure for performance engineering and motor sport needs to be considered. Developments such as the new Rockingham speedway are to be welcomed, but we must also look closely at some of the ideas regarding the development of Silverstone as a pinnacle for motor racing and the motor sport industry. Consideration must be given as to how such developments can be used to help the manufacturing and engineering industries as a whole.
There is a solid base for optimism and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) said, manufacturing is doing well at present, but some challenges remain to be addressed. I shall describe them only briefly, as I know that other hon. Members want to contribute to the debate.
I hope that the Government will take on board some of the representations from organisations such as the Engineering Employers Federation. Capital investment has improved under this active Government, who promote manufacturing investment, but all too often it lags behind that of our competitor s. There may be a case for reviewing again the question of capital allowances, to see whether investment could be stimulated further. That is especially important at a time when we suffer from the competitive disadvantage associated with the weakness of the euro.
Moreover, there is a problem with research and development. All too often our spending in that regard—and especially on development—lags behind that of our competitors. Maybe again we can look at what extra action we can take in that area.
Lastly, I want to say something on a matter that Conservative Members have mentioned: the climate change levy. We on the Labour Benches take no lessons


from them on that matter. All that we have heard from them is "Scrap it". Protection of the environment is a matter that concerns us all. Nevertheless, the operation of the levy in its current form needs to be reviewed, because all too often, companies that have improved their productivity are still hit by it in a way that can be seen to be anomalous. That is precisely why we need—not, as Conservative Members seem to think, to throw the baby out with the bathwater—to look at how the levy is targeted and how it could be reviewed to be made fairer.
We also need to look at the issue of revenue neutrality within sectors of industry, not just across the economy as a whole, and to consider the issue of negotiated agreements, an initiative brought in by the present Government. We should see whether the scope of those agreements could be modified so that the impact is more even across industry and so that some of the possible effects on manufacturing industry do not arise.
That is a very different formula from the "Scrap it and don't worry about the consequences" approach of the Conservative party. But Ministers need to take on board the legitimate concerns of manufacturing industry about the operation of the climate change levy, and before it comes in to look at possible reviews to ensure that its operation is fairer and that it is part of a package that helps to promote manufacturing industry success rather than have a detrimental effect.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I too congratulate the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce) on his maiden speech. I very much hope that he will enjoy his time in the House. Perhaps he will indeed follow in the footsteps of Dennis Canavan in the independence of spirit that his predecessor showed.
I speak in this debate as someone whose background was in manufacturing industry. I started my career with Ford in Dagenham, in about the same intake as Ian McAllister. I started at the metal stamping division there. What has happened recently is a cause of considerable sadness.
I want to speak particularly to the position of manufacturing industry in Wales, against the background that gross domestic product per hem there has dropped to 79 per cent. of the UK average, compared with a figure of 115 per cent. in south-east England. Unfortunately, the gap is still widening.
Manufacturing has a considerable significance for the Welsh economy. Compared with its being a fifth of the UK economy, to which the Secretary of State referred, manufacturing represents between a quarter and a third of the Welsh economy. Since 1997 we had lost 6,000 jobs in manufacturing up to last June. We have lost a further 2,000 since then. That 8,000 loss compares with 2,000 lost in the agricultural sector, which puts the figures into context.
We have seen the drift, drift, drift of loss of jobs in sectors such as textiles and clothing, about which we have heard from other hon. Members. Now we face the possible loss of thousands of jobs in the steel industry in Wales, a sector that has been of so great importance to us over the years. If we lose these jobs, there will be a knock-on effect way beyond Llanwern itself. It will directly hit areas such as Ebbw Vale and Shotton; it will also indirectly hit other jobs in manufacturing, in transport

and in many of the support services. Therefore, we were hoping that when the First Minister from Cardiff, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), met with the Prime Minister yesterday some progress might be announced. We still hope that these jobs can he safeguarded. As I have said before, one can mothball a plant, but one cannot mothball the work force.
Steel and most of the rest of the manufacturing sector are hit by the effects of currency fluctuations. The stability of the pound against the euro is basic. That stability must be at a fair parity. The over-priced pound has undoubtedly been a central factor in undermining the manufacturing sector over the past couple of years, as it hampers exporting and sucks in imports. The too high rate of the pound has that effect not just on manufacturing, but on agriculture and tourism. It is desperately necessary now to get the pound to an appropriate parity against the euro. Once that has been secured, there is a need to move into the common currency, so that never again do we suffer the uncertainties of currency fluctuations within Europe, which is so much of the domestic market for our manufacturing sector.

Mr. Bercow: I understand the vantage point from which the right hon. Gentleman approaches currency movements and prospective entry to the euro. However, is he content—as apparently the Secretary of State is—that under the terms of the treaties there is no entitlement for national Governments or Parliaments to influence the decision-making bodies of the European central bank in its conduct of monetary policy?

Mr. Wigley: I am not altogether convinced that Governments influence the Bank of England's decisions in the United Kingdom. Governments are entitled to opinions and I agree that those should be voiced and heard. However, there needs to be a coherence on Europe if we are to enjoy the stability that is necessary for our manufacturing sector. That is why I am looking for a commitment from the Government not only to entering the European currency zone but to creating the circumstances that will enable that to happen, and to happen as soon as possible.
We need three changes. First, we need the clear commitment to which I referred. Secondly, we need lower interest rates to help lower the pound's parity and, if inflation is seen as a threat, to use taxation as a tool to dampen it down. Thirdly, we need to ensure that the terms of reference of the Bank of England include a responsibility to keep an eye on what is happening to employment as well as inflation. Those terms exist in the United States, and I believe that they should apply here as well.
These changes are particularly important for manufacturing industry in Wales. We have as many as 348 manufacturing plants in Wales which are owned by overseas corporations, and they employ some 75,000 workers. They are in Wales not to sell to the Welsh market or even the UK market. They are there, overwhelmingly, to sell to the European market, and they need a level playing field to do so.
Other specific steps need to be taken to help foster the manufacturing industry in Wales, as elsewhere. We need more investment in research and development in Wales.
I noted with interest the comments of the Secretary of State when he was addressing the "Investing in the Regions" conference on 15 November. He said:
Since 1990 the share of GDP within the UK has declined significantly in the North East, the North West, the West Midlands, Wales and Scotland. It has increased significantly in the Eastern Region, London and the South East.
These are symptoms of something fundamental. We don't have to look far for some of the causes. In 1998 manufacturing businesses invested over ten times as much in research and development in the South East—£l.9 billion—than in the North East—£164 million.
In Wales, that investment is even less. Therefore, we need positive incentives for investment in research and development.
Secondly, we should learn in Wales from the experience of Ireland and the way in which its GDP per head has increased not only beyond that of Wales but of the UK. The most important tool used by Ireland was the lower corporation tax rate, which acted as an incentive to attract and expand industry. We need to take advantage of the provision allowed within the European rules for operating aids of this sort to be permissible at least within the objective 1 areas in the UK.

Mr. Mark Hendrick (Preston): Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the corporation tax rate set in Ireland at the time was discriminatory, with foreign firms encouraged to invest by being given a preferential rate of corporation tax? I think that that has since been outlawed in the European Union.

Mr. Wigley: I accept that that is exactly what happened. It happened with the agreement of the European Union, and the recent agreement, that will run for the best part of the next decade in Ireland, allows a lower rate of corporation tax to continue there. As there are objective 1 areas in not only Wales but Merseyside, South Yorkshire and Cornwall and derogation for operating aid is possible within those areas—as the Prime Minister recognised in his statement following the recent Nice conference—it is within the Treasury's powers to reach agreement. I was encouraged when the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs included in its report last week a specific call for regional variations in taxation, which I welcome. That policy is supported by the Lib-Lab government in Wales. I urge the Secretary of State to persuade the Treasury to make such provision possible.
Thirdly, the House needs to consider other opportunities for improving regional competitiveness in the UK. I draw attention to a report published by Robert Higgins of the centre for advanced studies at Cardiff University, entitled "An Index of Competitiveness in the UK: Local, regional and global analysis". Wales ranks last but one in the UK regional competitiveness index. The report's summary states:
At a global level, London and the South East are performing as well as the top-ten most competitive nations … at the lower end of the scale, Wales, the North East and Yorkshire and Humber rank alongside such nations as Hungary, Chile and Israel.
The disparity in competitiveness is substantial and needs to be addressed by the Government.
I urge the Government to consider those points, heed the TUC's warning that manufacturing industry in Wales is haemorrhaging and take the radical action needed now—before it is too late.

Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce), who is not in the Chamber now. As a friend and admirer of his predecessor, I would welcome him on this Bench. I shall speak to him afterwards.
We should take no lectures from the Tories about jobs and manufacturing. In the two worst British recessions since the second world war, the Tories showed that they had contempt for manufacturing. Swathes of it disappeared and millions of jobs were lost. When Nigel Lawson was Chancellor of the Exchequer, he was heard to say that manufacturing did not matter any more; the economy could be left to operate by itself; and the financial and service sectors would be enough. Some Opposition Members now seem to be changing their minds about manufacturing and share our view.

Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman spectacularly misquoted my right hon. and noble Friend, Lord Lawson of Blaby. In view of the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for the former Chancellor's judgments, does he agree with Lord Lawson when he famously and succinctly said that the business of government is not the government of business?

Mr. Hopkins: The hon. Gentleman's intervention illustrates the profound difference between us. I was about to state my belief that it is the business of government to intervene, to ensure that the economy operates well and to the benefit of the people—which is a different point. If I had time, I would' make greater criticisms of Lord Lawson—whose management of the economy led directly to the chaos at the end of the 1980s and early 1990s. The Tories showed malign indifference to the fortunes of manufacturing. They created a casino economy in which people were more interested in making money than in making things. Buying, selling and gambling are interesting and one can make money doing them—but they cannot sustain an economy for long. I suspect that we are seeing crocodile tears today.
We congratulate the Government on getting 1 million more people in work. There is no question but that many sectors of the economy are doing well, but some have done less well and there are concerns about manufacturing. In my constituency in my first year in Parliament, there were two serious closures with a significant loss of jobs, at Electrolux and a smaller firm named Coulters. More recently, there was the announcement about Vauxhall that many of us are campaigning to reverse. I have written to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, trying to convince him to use Government efforts and even Government money to persuade Vauxhall to reverse its decision and stay in Luton. The short-term cost of sustaining Vauxhall's car manufacturing in Luton would be far less than the cost of letting it go—in terms of extra benefits payments, the loss to the manufacturing sector and the effect on the balance of trade.
Clearly, the pound is overvalued at present. I agree with the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) that there is a problem with overvaluation against other currencies as well as eurozone currencies. I support the Government in resisting the siren voices that are calling for immediate


entry to the euro. Entry at anything like the present parity would be a disaster for manufacturing. Vauxhall had a special pay agreement that took account of the strong pound. That has been brushed to one side and the company proposes to sack all its workers anyway, but we hope to reverse that plan. Even though Vauxhall started to import a higher proportion of components to offset the currency costs, the company said that the pound should be down to DM2.70 as a sensible, competitive base.
Fixing the value of the pound, then entering the euro even at an appropriate exchange rate for now, would not necessarily be appropriate in the long term. Although currency stability is wanted, a single currency is a different matter. The postwar stable exchange rate system produced the highest employment and growth in our history. That is the best way to run the developed world and the world economy—using a system of managed exchange rates at sensible parities, not a single currency.
I recently attended a conference that was addressed by Válav Klaus, until recently Prime Minister of the Czech Republic. He is not of my political persuasion but made the strong point that single currencies work only in coherent, integrated economies in Which the factors of production are genuinely mobile. They do not work when one tries to push together different economies. There are some historical precedents; Válav Klaus used the example of the Czech Republic and Slovakia.
There are, historically, problems surrounding investment in manufacturing, but the latest four quarters for which figures are available snow slightly higher investment than in the last four quarters of the previous Conservative Government. That is rot good enough, but it is better. Manufacturing production is also 2.5 per cent. higher. It is not yet a total disaster, hut if nothing is done about the currency and investment, mere could be greater problems in future.
I want to see not just Vauxhall saved but the whole motor manufacturing sector boosted by short-term Government assistance and appropriate macro-economic policies, to make sure that the industry is sustained. I have made the point before in the House that Britain is still a net importer of motor products. It does not have overcapacity. We ought to sustain the industry and expand motor manufacturing and other sectors. We must maintain a substantial manufacturing sector, rot just let it go. The previous Government's hands-off policy did not work. We must intervene.
Last year saw a record trade deficit in goods, which is most worrying. That deficit is more substantial in respect of non-EU countries, which suggests a problem not just within the European Union but with the rest of the world.

Mr. Fabricant: I am listening with great interest to the hon. Gentleman's speech—especially to some of the insights that he offers us. He says that the problem with the value of our currency relates not only to the euro but to other parts of the world. Earlier, he mentioned Korea—as did other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable). Does the hon. Gentleman agree that our biggest single trading partner is the United States of America, and that the pound is quite weak against the US dollar? Does he also agree that the Korean

currency is especially weak at present because of the turmoil in that nation? Is it not unfair of him to say that the pound is overvalued against other major currencies?

Mr. Hopkins: I define strength or weakness by the trading position. If there is a massive trade deficit with a particular country, that might indicate that the currency is overvalued against that country's currency. It is said that our currency is weak against the dollar, but we need to demonstrate the truth of that before I would accept the case. I do not accept that we have a big trade deficit with America.
We could go into details, but I shall mention one country that was condemned during the far east meltdown a couple of years ago—Malaysia. It was said then that one must suspend, or not impose, exchange controls and not devalue; however, Malaysia did the opposite and within a year the country bounced back. It imposed exchange controls and quickly devalued. That upset the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, but Malaysia recovered and everyone said, "How clever". People were astonished that the strategy worked—but I thought it was obvious, basic economics.
Last week, an interesting article in The Guardian referred to a rumour that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State plans to intervene in the steel sector over Corus, to try to help to sustain the industry for the future. I am glad about that. It is important not only electorally—obviously—but for the future of our country. We cannot let the steel industry go, although its volume has declined relative to that in similar economies. We must sustain steel, motor manufacturing and other sectors.
The headline of the article was "Intervene—or kiss goodbye to industry". In the 1970s, I worked for the Trades Union Congress where I was heavily involved with Labour's industrial strategy and with an organisation called NEDDY—the National Economic Development Council. Although NEDDY was not the greatest show in the world and did not achieve much, it focused attention on the problems of particular industries and tried to find solutions. It was extremely useful in exposing the problems of industry.
The Conservative Government—Mrs. Thatcher's Tories—abolished NEDDY at a stroke; they did not believe in even discussing the problems of industry, let alone in trying to solve them. At least the Labour Government are trying seriously to consider industry. I hope that the rumours about intervention are true and that the Government will go much further than the article suggests.

Mr. Nigel Evans: I agree with the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) that manufacturing industry is vital to this country; we must not let it die. At the winding up of the debate, we look forward to hearing what action Ministers propose to take to stem the decline in manufacturing industry.
I am delighted that the Minister for Competitiveness, who has responsibility for the aerospace industry, is in his place on the Treasury Bench, as I shall refer to the threat of job losses in BAE Systems. We believe that those losses will fall disproportionately on the military side in the north-west.
When we consider the statistics for total employment in manufacturing, the House will realise how important manufacturing is to the north-west of England and to Wales. In the north-west, almost 21 per cent. of total employment is in manufacturing; the figure is surpassed only in the east midlands and the west midlands. In Wales, the figure is 18.5 per cent, but if we compare England with Wales, manufacturing employment is proportionately more important to Wales. In London, the figure is only 8.4 per cent.
If only Islington had been the centre of manufacturing industry in this country, perhaps the Prime Minister and the Government would take manufacturing more seriously. I hope that the Government's concentration on all things London will not continue and that manufacturing will not carry on taking such a beating.
On 19 January, the front page of my local newspaper—the Lancashire Evening Telegraph—carried an article with the headline, "Fear of Job Melt-down". The article lists some of the manufacturing job losses that have occurred recently in east Lancashire:
590 at Leoni Wiring Systems in Accrington … 450 at car firm TRW in Burnley, followed by 150 at Caligen Foam in Accrington and Viktor Achter in Burnley … 300 at wallpaper manufacturer John Wilman in Nelson; 110 at Blackburn firm SSL … 100 at Crown Wallcoverings in Darwen; 90 at Time Computers in Simonstone—
in my constituency—and
50 at the Sappi Paper Mill in Blackburn.
That is one heck of a roll-call of job losses in manufacturing industry in east Lancashire. I am extremely concerned about them and have already written to the Prime Minister asking him to visit east Lancashire and look for himself. I could not persuade the right hon. Gentleman to go there a few years ago to look at the plight of the farming industry in the Ribble valley. I had another go today. I hope that he will take manufacturing job losses seriously—the industry is a bread and butter one. I have always been involved in the service sector—in retail—but I realise how important manufacturing is for jobs and certainly for skills. My hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) pointed out how important it is for our work force to have the right skills.
The greatest fear for many people—especially those in their 50s, because there is an underlying ageism about jobs in this country—is that if they lose their manufacturing jobs, they will be unable to find other work at all; they will certainly not find work that uses the skills that they have built up. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) referred to that matter. We need to consider multi-skilling to ensure that, when changes in manufacturing are needed—for all sorts of reasons—people will have the skills to make the switch more easily.
In 1999, there was decline in every manufacturing sector in the north-west except the chemical sector. The announcement on jobs from BAE Systems caused me great fear; the unions have given a figure of 2,000, but the problem is that we are not certain. There has been much discussion of the way that redundancies are announced in motor manufacturing. It is not fair to the work force when the first they hear of such redundancies is when they switch on the radio. Indeed, when I listened

to the "Today" programme—through gritted teeth, as ever—and heard that there were to be redundancies at BAE Systems, I was pot happy, as a Member representing a north-west constituency where there are many aerospace jobs, that that was the first I had heard of the matter.
Those are not the first redundancies at BAE Systems; several restructurings have taken place over the past few years and thousands of job losses were the result. That does not affect only those people directly employed by the company: contract jobs disappear or are not renewed; small businesses depending on BAE Systems are affected—not only in the manufacturing sector but in services.
The Consortium for Lancashire Aerospace includes more than 100 companies which get together and network like crazy to ensure chat the north-west remains a centre of military manufacturing skills. Strategically, the area is vital to aerospace manufacture; we have enormous skills. If those redundancies fall disproportionately in the military manufacturing sector—Samlesbury is in my constituency, while Warton is only a few miles away in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack)—there will be an enormous ripple effect throughout the whole north-west.
My fear, therefore, is that jobs will be lost in other, smaller contractor firms—the small businesses that rely on a healthy, vibrant BAE Systems. Many service sector jobs were created 133 the healthy manufacturing climate that used to exist in Lancashire. Those service sector jobs will also be lost.
Several Members, including me, met the unions on 16 June 2000, when they had a campaign called, "Let's put the British back into aerospace." I totally endorse that campaign. I do not like the name BAE Systems. I like the name British Aerospace, so I shall call it that for the rest of my speech; it is easier. I am proud that the aerospace industry is British and that some of it is located in the north-west—much of it in my constituency. The unions feared that much of the manufacturing that used to take place at British Aerospace would be contracted out to some of the former Soviet bloc eastern European countries, which ant now knocking on the European Union's door for membership. Of course that has happened, and some; of those manufacturing jobs are going to the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary.
Some managers at British Aerospace told me that the jobs involved were low level and far better suited to those countries. In fact, it is much cheaper to manufacture there than in the north-west. Irrespective of whether those manufacturing jobs are low level, we cannot stand idly by while they are lost. They could easily be done in this country by British people, some of whom have the required skills; others would be only to happy to get them. So I ask the Government carefully to consider such contracting out to other European countries.
I understand that, in many respects, British Aerospace has to compete with other aerospace industries throughout the world, and that if the company is disproportionately more expensive here, we may well lose contracts elsewhere; but we should not allow that to happen. That is the dilemma. The Government should negotiate with the company to encourage manufacturing jobs to remain in this country. I also fully understand such things as offset, where we look for contracts abroad and part of the deal is that manufacturing will be carried out there. I have


no problem with that, but when such jobs go abroad simply because of cost and I am told, "They are low level. Don't worry about it, Nigel", I start to worry if that is the excuse. I ask the Government to consider such matters and small businesses.
I ask the Government to consider the enormous impact that the climate change levy will have on manufacturing. The levy will cost jobs, and the Government could do something about it. It is their tax; they are introducing it, but we will certainly abolish it when we form the next Government. Labour Members agree that there are real problems with the climate change levy, so please look at it, especially as many companies are desperately worried about it.
Given my responsibility for Wales, I want to refer to manufacturing there in the remaining few minutes available to me. There have been enormous job losses in the manufacturing sector in Wales, and I shall mention a few. Courtaulds lost 167 jobs in Wrexham. I shall deal with Corus separately. Jobs have been lost at Corus, but I am deeply concerned about the threat of 4,500 job losses that it is considering. Job losses are feared at British Aerospace in Wales. Dewhirst in Pembrokeshire has lost 300 jobs.
Attracting manufacturing jobs to west Wales is a problem, and distribution is proportionately more expensive there. On Saturday, Stephen Crabb—a Conservative prospective parliamentary candidate—showed me the blight that has occurred in Milford Haven. We must find ways to attract more jobs into that area. Some 900 jobs were lost at BICC General—a power cable business in Wrexham.
The M4 used to be a magnet for inward investment; it is now job loss alley. Around the M4, Hitachi has lost 350 to 500 jobs. Sony has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), and it is losing 400 jobs. Panasonic is losing 1,500 jobs. Those manufacturing job losses have hit south Wales particularly badly, but there is now the prospect of 4,500 job losses at Corus, in Llanwern. We have heard how important steel manufacturing is to this country. It is the guts of manufacturing, and we must ensure that those jobs are preserved.
The impact on south Wales and the ripple effect throughout the United Kingdom will be enormous. The loss involves 4,500 people directly employed by Corus, but its effect will be multiplied. The Western Mail estimates that about 12,500 could be affected if Corus decides that those jobs will go.

Mr. Bill Tynan: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that more could have been done for the Ravenscraig plant, which is in the area where I live? If those jobs and the industry had been a protected there, we would not be in the current position.

Mr. Evans: Ravenscraig is an example of the devastation that has occurred in that area, but it cannot be corrected overnight. The closure has had an enormous impact throughout the area, and it took place several years ago. That is why I hope that we will redouble our efforts. There is a lot of talk, but we need action. That is what the Corus workers will be looking for—not a meeting with the Welsh Assembly or the Prime Minister, and so on.
Given the current fragmentation of government, people wonder where the buck stops. I can tell the Minister that the buck stops with the Government. If jobs are lost at

Llanwern, the people there and in south Wales generally will hold the Government responsible for not pulling out their finger and making absolutely certain that everything has been done to protect the manufacturing jobs there.
The Government should be looking at the fact that rules and regulations cost an extra £5 billion and that taxation on business involves an extra £5 billion. The Government are fixated on the euro. They are telling industry to prepare for a switch to the euro, which is putting enormous costs on industry. Let us concentrate on manufacturing and find out how we can assist it. That is an enormous responsibility for the Government, but they must act now.

Mr. David Crausby: I shall never cease to be amazed by the brass-necked audacity of the Tories. I worked in manufacturing industry throughout the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, and I watched at close quarters as the Tories vandalised and almost completely devastated our manufacturing base. I was employed for most of the period by a paper machine manufacturer, and there were 3,000 when the Conservatives first came to office. As the trade union representative, I took part in all the frequent redundancy discussions that occurred during those years.
The Tories then in government viewed those job losses as statistics—casualties of the market. We were exhorted to stop whingeing and to get on our bikes and find a job, but I knew those people personally. Every forced redundancy was, and is, a personal tragedy, involving not just the workers themselves but their families and communities. Redundancy can be a brutal affair.
In the early 1970s, I worked in a small factory as one of three vertical machinists in the machine shop. The company decided to reduce its numbers and to make one vertical machinist redundant. I had two small children at the time, and hon. Members can imagine the tension that we felt when I went home, knowing that the odds were only 2:1. I fully expected that I would be chosen because I was the last to start working there, and we had to wait two agonising weeks while the company made up its mind.
On the day of the decision, the foreman walked around the shop-floor, clutching a wad of brown envelopes, which he handed out here and there. We all knew exactly what they were. He passed me by without giving me an envelope, and I still remember the feeling of relief and guilt, because I knew that one of the other two would be going on the dole.
The management had decided to pick the man on the night-shift, because he was the only one who was not married. Some people might think that that was a fair decision, but he did not appreciate it and I very much doubt whether a tribunal would find such a reason acceptable today. The management delivered his brown envelope to his house while he was in bed. We all found the experience of being made redundant humiliating. It made us feel as though we had done something wrong.
I have recalled just one incident, but, over the years, there were thousands of similar experiences. Slowly but surely, the 3,000 of us were gradually whittled away with redundancy after redundancy—100 here, 50 there. It happened in factory after factory right across the country, but especially in the north. My Conservative predecessor, Peter Thurnham—who later joined the Liberal


Democrats—blamed the redundancies on the trade unions. The Tory Governments of the day accepted no blame whatsoever. They brushed aside each announcement of more job losses with senseless comments about market forces and not being prepared to support lame ducks. For Conservative Members to stand here today and shamelessly pretend that they had no part in the decline of British manufacturing takes my breath away. They invented the decline of our manufacturing base, and they enacted the crime with malice.
It was not just incompetence, although the Conservatives' monetaristic ideas certainly displayed some of that. It may well have been acceptable, or at least understandable, if their policy had been successful, but, in reality, it was an economic disaster, from which we may never recover as a nation. We will certainly never be the same again. The responsibility for that will remain with the Conservatives, especially with their hero Margaret Thatcher, who did more damage to Britain's industrial base than Adolf Hitler achieved in the whole of the second world war.
I watched as thousands of highly trained and highly skilled craftsmen were driven into any job that they could find—should they be so lucky. At the same time, there was a virtual end to the training of apprentices. The termination of so many apprenticeship opportunities is comparable to a premier league football club abolishing its youth policy. It is not possible to have a successful football team without nurturing young talent, and we will not have a successful manufacturing sector without providing the necessary skills to our young people. During those Conservative years, Britain lost one of its most valuable assets—the skills of our people. They were sacrificed on the altar of market forces. We lost a generation of talent, and it will take mammoth effort to halt the slide of our manufacturing base.
In my constituency this week, Sandusky Walmsley—my old company—announced more redundancies. My predecessor blamed such a decline of industry on militant trade unions, yet Walmsley has good industrial relations and has not experienced a single minute of industrial action for more than 20 years. In the early 1980s, more than 17,000 people were unemployed in my constituency, and the unemployment rate in Bolton was more than 17 per cent. Today, my constituency has an unemployment rate of 3.9 per cent. and slightly more than 1,700 people claim benefit. It lessens the pain when alternative jobs are available, but the jobs that replace those in manufacturing are rarely better than the jobs that people previously held. That is especially true of people who are older and less able to retrain.
I recognise that the Government have done much good work for manufacturing, but there is clearly much more to do, especially in the north-west. We are still losing jobs, in particular in textiles and engineering. I very much welcome their efforts and this week's announcement of £54 million for the regional innovation fund. That can only help, especially in the north and the west midlands, which will be main beneficiaries. However, there is only so much that direct Government assistance can do. The high value of the pound against the euro is, quite frankly, much more important.
I am certainly not a euro enthusiast. I was born right after the war and brought up on war comics and black and white movies about the evils of the third Reich, but that is all behind us. To be anti-European when our involvement in Europe is clearly in the best interests of our country is pure stupidity; it is based on the ignorance of sheer prejudice.
I accept that entry into the euro will inevitably mean a loss of sovereignty. Labour's proposed referendum on that will enable the public to decide. We must engage in an intelligent and informed debate on the subject that weighs the loss of sovereignty against our prospects for economic survival. But who took us down the long European road to the point at which we have no choice but to join the euro? It was, of course, the Conservative party under the leadership of Edward Heath, Margaret Thatcher and John Major. They made our membership of a common currency virtually inevitable. If that is the case—I believe that it is—we had better make the best of it and become members at the right time and at the right level while there is still something left of our manufacturing base.
The Government have provided a stable economic climate. We have low inflation, low unemployment, strong public finances and a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to regenerate Britain's proud history of production. I call on the Government not to concentrate only on the large company job losses in the car manufacturing and steel industries—important though they are—but to keep a wary eye on the supply chain of industry, which is suffering the slow trickle of decline in small company after mall company. It will only be with the success of small energetic enterprises that we will secure a stronger industrial base and a healthy manufacturing future.

Mr. Richard Page: I must declare an interest. I have connections with a couple of companies that supply manufactured goods, service manufactured goods and repair manufactured goods.
My first pleasurable task is to congratulate the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce) on his maiden speech. Every hon. Member vividly remembers his or her maiden speech, and he can recall his with pride because he delivered it in a positive and humorous way. As a by-election victor myself, I know the trials and tribulations that he had to go through to get to this place. It is slightly different to the easier ride of a general election. I congratulate him on that and commend him for the tactful way in which he referred to the splendid independence of his predecessor.
Let me just give the hon. Member for Falkirk, West a tad of advice. My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant)—who, I must warn, leads people astray—suggested that the hon. Gentleman should sit on the same Bench as the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). I have to tell him that that is the old lags' Bench. If he goes there, it will be a career-inhibiting move and, as he has only just arrived in the House, I suggest that he chooses a more up-market Bench from which to start his political career.

Mr. Purchase: There is nothing up-market about that lot on the Benches behind me.

Mr. Page: The hon. Gentleman can relax because I shall come to him shortly.
The authors of "1066 and All That" suggested:
History is not what you thought. It is what you can remember.
Another famous person said, "He who writes the history writes the truth". The selective memories of political parties are notorious and it is time that we stopped quoting historical references and started to look to the future.
We all remember the dramas and the traumas of the mid-1970s. We were the sick man of Europe and had 26 per cent. inflation. I am grateful because but for that, I would not have been successful in a by-election in a strong Labour seat. Equally, we can all remember the difficulties that we faced in overcoming the problems of the nationalised industries, which were grossly overmanned in the 1980s. We can go on and on, and even go back to William the Conqueror to make all the necessary partisan points. However, that would not be helpful. We must look to the future and consider what we can do to help.
The Labour party had 18 years in opposition to prepare its policies and it has had four years to implement them. However, the present position is very worrying for manufacturing. Something is certainly going wrong. I know that it will not help the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) and his career, but I agree with much of what he said. We have an exporting tradition and we should change the culture of investment. Our companies that do well, such as the pharmaceutical companies, have a culture of extra investment in their businesses. They invest a greater percentage than firms in many other sectors.
Members on both sides of the House, with the exception of members of the Government, are aware of the difficulties facing manufacturing industry. I remind the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Crausby) of what he said in Trade and Industry questions last week. He asked the Minister of Trade:
What assessment he has made of the recent performance of manufacturing industry in the north-west of England.
The Minister said that its performance was being continually assessed and implied that it was going from strength to strength, so the hon. Gentleman asked:
Is my right hon. Friend aware that output, exports and employment have fallen in the past four months in the north-west of England? BAE Systems is threatening thousands more redundancies. Things are therefore becoming more difficult, to say the least. Bolton has suffered wave after wave of engineering redundancies and two textile factories have closed recently.—[Official Report, 18 January 2001; Vol. 361, c. 501.]
Therefore, I took some of the hon. Gentleman's earlier strictures slightly amiss.

Mr. Crausby: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that manufacturing industry has declined in the north-west, because the industrial base has been damaged to the point that there are not the skills available to provide local industries with the people they need?

Mr. Page: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned this issue, because it helps me to explain why he is living in the past. Last year was dominated by the problems of the motor manufacturing industry—by the threats to the future of BMW in the midlands, the prospective closure of the Ford plant at Dagenham and the end of the Vauxhall plant in Luton. The only exception is

the Nissan plant in Sunderland, and the whole House hopes and prays that a decision is made to keep production of the Micra there.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) was right. We must have a critical mass of various activities, such as motor sport and the steel industry, in this country. If we do not have such a critical mass, we will suffer the downside. Smaller businesses suffer because they will not be able to supply a main industry and many redundancies will result.
The prime example of that problem is Corus. My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) said that there could be 4,500 redundancies but, every time I see a figure, the number seems to rise. The last figure that I saw was 6,000. I sincerely hope that it is not correct.
Not only Conservatives Members express concern about unemployment. Only a few months ago, John Monks said that he anticipated that unemployment in manufacturing will rise at the rate of 10,000 every month—a staggering amount and a worrying figure.
Two debates on manufacturing have been held in Westminster Hall recently. I have accused the Government of abandoning manufacturing and, if not the crime of malice, of the sin of indifference. I am glad that the Minister for Competitiveness has just arrived; he is his normal charming self. He said:
We are taking action on the three key issues of the European exchange rate, the climate change levy and energy prices. —[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 10 January 2001; Vol. 360, c. 238WH.]
I shall discuss what the Government are doing about them.
The plain fact is that matters are being allowed to slide. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) pointed out that, in the early 1990s under a Conservative Government, there was a continual and steady rise in employment in manufacturing as opposed to the collapse in the number of jobs by 350,000 that has occurred since 1997. The prospects are worse.
The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) made some valid and telling points. I do not normally like to agree with the Liberal Democrats, but I will on this occasion. He mentioned the way in which unit labour costs have moved. Relative to our major competitors, they have moved by 45 per cent. since 1995. There are also serious underlying trends in the balance of trade. Export volumes have risen by 38.5 per cent. over that period while import volumes have risen by 57.7 per cent. As the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East pointed out, we are an exporting nation. When our imports start to exceed our exports, that is a sign of trouble.
Overall manufacturing output rose by only 2.2 per cent. between 1995 and 1999, and that is lower than our GDP growth of 2.9 per cent. in the past 12 months. The relative strength of sterling against the euro and the dollar has made our exports less competitive and Member after Member has driven that point home. However, I do not know whether the Government have taken the message on board.
It is no surprise that the Government do not wish to address these serious issues—they are far too embarrassing for them. However, we have a positive programme to help manufacturing. First, we would remove the damaging climate change levy. We are below


the Kyoto targets, and our serious problems will come when our nuclear plants start to close. Therefore, we should consider what we should do about this country's energy production now, and not wait for those plants to close with all the problems that that will create.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield said, the levy is a blunt instrument that is not properly tuned to the needs of our industry. I noted how dismissive some Labour Members were; the Secretary of State seemed to regard the cost of £100 million as a mere bagatelle. However, £100 million is a lot of money to manufacturing industry and such a cost would be a hammer blow to something that is already being hit.
The Conservative party would have a seat for manufacturing industry on our council of economic advisers to the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the shadow Chancellor takes on that role. We want manufacturing to be at the heart of the political process.
Several of my hon. Friends spoke about deregulation. My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield made a powerful speech and I shall return to that shortly. However, the British Chambers of Commerce has estimated that industry will face an enormous bill of approaching £10 billion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) rightly discussed the pound and the euro. He made some positive points. Until the Chancellor stops his fiscal policy of spending more money than we earn, our interest rates will not come down sufficiently to enable the pound to reach a better level against other currencies.
We have also made commitments to help small village shops by a reduction in their rates and we have a clear policy for 3p off fuel. To put it delicately, the Government's policy on fuel is slightly unclear.
I want to put some flesh on to the bones of our deregulation policy. We have a positive policy that we have announced and shall use. Its main element is an independent assessment process outside of government, so that officials will not decide whether the regulations that they have drawn up will have a particular impact. We will appoint independent people who know industry and who know what is what. They will provide the advice.
I have to smile recalling that, when my party was in government, jumping about at the Opposition Dispatch Box was the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), now a Home Office Minister. I have to commend the hon. Lady on having brilliantly badgered and harried us about our efforts on deregulation; sometimes, she tabled 50 questions in one week—bang, bang, bang. She said that when a Labour Government came to power, they would do something magnificent. She spoke the truth. The Labour Government broke the record: in 1999, they introduced more than 3,700 new regulations, and every figure emerging now suggests that in 2000 they managed to top that record of hammer blows on industry.
Of course, the deregulation unit is in place and working to remove regulations that are crippling our industry. I recently heard about the unit's major triumph: it has done away with a restriction on Sunday dancing. Hon. Members can now dance on a Sunday without fear of the

law coming down upon them. At this point in my speech, I was hoping to look up from my copious notes to see happy and smiling faces on the Government Benches, but I do not see a single smile. Are my hon. Friends happy that they can now dance on Sundays? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, ecstatic."] What a positive step.

Mr. Laurence Robertson: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Page: I have only a few minutes and I want the Minister to be able to give a full account of the Government's crimes when she responds to the debate, so I am reluctant to bite into her time.
I turn to the Government's approach to payment times. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wells mentioned that it was the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green who pushed questions about payment times and said how disgraceful the situation was, but as soon as the hon. Lady left the Department of Trade and Industry, it all went to the dogs. The percentage of bills promptly paid is now down to 93 per cent. from the original figure of 97.7 per cent. Let me quote from The Sunday Telegraph—the Secretary of State may quote from The Sun if he likes. A headline from last Sunday reads: "MPs slam DTI for late bill payments", and the following article states:
The report by the trade and industry select committee is expected to be a catalogue of failure, with muddled figures and lack of focus in many DTI objectives.
Apparently the Committee
will also say the department's aim of building "an enterprise society" amounts to "a dog's breakfast" and urge ministers to look again at defining such a goal.
Finally, the report states that the Committee has
discovered there are no definitive figures for staff numbers at the department. nor accurate statistics on sick leave.
That is why this country is in such trouble. With a Department like that responsible for our manufacturing, no wonder unemployment and job losses are mounting daily.
The Chancellor said that he wanted to do away with boom and bust. Well, he is certainly doing away with the boom. I hope that we can prevent a bust.

The Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe (Mrs. Helen Liddell): Replying to the debate gives me the privilege of welcoming the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce). It is a particular pleasure for me do so, because I know his constituency well and my parents lived there for a while. However, despite my detailed knowledge of the constituency, I was unaware of the Falkirk wheel, and I, like the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), will happily take up my hon. Friend's invitation to visit it.
My hon. Friend represents a very impressive constituency made up of very impressive people. I hope that it will benefit fro n the assistance that we have been able to give Longannet to secure the future of coal mining on the Forth—many of the constituents of Falkirk, West work at Longannet. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend has begun a distinguished career, but if the hon. Member for Lichfield intends to visit my hon. Friend's


constituency, I should warn him that, as an ex-major, my hon. Friend is probably even fitter than the hon. Gentleman.
Mid-debate, I found myself checking whether this was an Opposition day, given that the Opposition Benches had the appearance of the Mary Celeste. That is a clear sign of the consideration that Conserve Live Members give to our manufacturing industry. It is significant that the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) said in mitigation at the start of his speech that he did not want to think about the past—let us forget the past and look to the future, he said. If I were in his position, especially if I had been a Minister in the Conservative Government, I would want to forget the past as well. The hon. Gentleman failed to point out that unemployment in his constituency has fallen by 56.7 per cent. between 1997 and 2000, and by a further 14.7 per cent. since 2000—directly as a consequence of the policies of the current Government.
Both the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) spoke of the killer, devastating policy that is supposed to win their party the next general election a Conservative Government would appoint to a council of economic advisers someone from the manufacturing sector. The World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the Bank of England and everyone else will be quivering in the face of that killer Conservative policy. Yesterday, one of my colleagues said that the Conservatives' economic policy would disgrace Mickey Mouse, but that was an insult to Mickey Mouse.
The right hon. Member for Wells made much of the climate change levy. Let me take up some of his points relating to the Engineering Employers Federation report and the Ernst and Young survey which other speakers mentioned. I do not recognise the figures contained in the press release to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. The EEF estimates that the net cost of the levy will be £100 million, but the basis of those figures is wholly unclear. The EEF appears to be confused about which sectors are eligible to enter into negotiated agreements and it has missed the fact that, in a modern economy, the ability to use energy efficiently is not merely a matter of having a sensible environmental policy, but one of being globally competitive. One of the strengths of the levy is that it is designed to make companies examine their use of energy and use it much more effectively.
Companies can seek exemptions and they can make changes to improve their energy efficiency. They can use new forms of renewable energy and good quality heat and power. The levy will be revenue neutral: it is estimated that in its first year it will raise £1 billion, all of which will be recycled back to business, via a 0.3 per cent. reduction in employers' national insurance contributions; £100 million in enhanced capital allowances for investment in energy-saving technologies, the need for which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden); and £50 million for the Carbon Trust that will provide energy-saving advice and audits and promote low carbon technologies, which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable).

Mr. Fabricant: In what way is the levy revenue neutral to companies such as Sony, which have already made the

investment? They will have to pay the climate change levy, but will be unable to get back any of the investment that they have already made.

Mrs. Liddell: As Lord Marshall said in his report on the environment, which I think was published in 1998, energy efficiency is not a one-off venture and should continue throughout the company's operations. That is common sense.
The right hon. Member for Wells also told us how Conservative economic policy would lead to reduced interest rates and lower inflation. No wonder the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire asked us to forget history, as this week 10 years ago the inflation rate was 8.5 per cent. and the interest rate was 14 per cent. The Government's economic policies have moved us away from the boom and bust of the Conservative years. We have economic stability, as was recognised in the report that was outlined in The Sun and to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred.
Manufacturers need economic stability and Labour is delivering that. Public borrowing has been cut by more than £45 billion in three years, inflation is lower than it has been for 30 years and long-term interest rates are at their lowest level for more than 35 years. Those policies are giving businesses the opportunity to expand and create employment.

Mr. Bercow: Will the Minister give way?

Mrs. Liddell: I should like to make some progress.
The Government regard manufacturing as a key part of the economy that makes a major contribution to Britain's productivity, innovation and trade performance. We recognise, however, that some sectors of manufacturing industry are going through considerable difficulty. We are helping them by providing the macro-economic stability to which I referred. Low interest rates, low inflation and sound public finances will help all UK manufacturers in the long term.
We recognise that some companies are affected by global circumstances. Such companies are often in traditional sectors where they are unable to benefit from technological changes. I do not blame Opposition or Labour Members for concentrating on high-profile cases involving job losses, but there are also good news stories, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out.

Mr. David Winnick: The situation in the west midlands is undoubtedly better now than during the two major recessions of the 1980s, as all hon. Members who represent west midlands constituencies recognise. However, is my right hon. Friend aware of my concern about a Swedish-owned company that is based in my constituency and which is being closed? Sandvik is to be completely closed by August, with the loss of 139 jobs. Will she or one of her ministerial colleagues receive a deputation on that important matter, about which I have already written to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State?

Mrs. Liddell: I am aware of the case to which my hon. Friend refers and I recognise his concern. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade will be only too happy to receive a delegation.
In addition to the specific measures that we have taken to support manufacturers—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to the assistance that we have sought to give to the textile industry—we have also introduced the lowest ever rate of corporation tax. The right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) made much of corporation tax, but we have the lowest rate in Europe.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield asked about research and development. We have made a £150 million research and development tax credit available for small and medium enterprises and introduced new 100 per cent. allowances for small and medium-sized businesses to help them in adapting to information technology. Those are concrete measures that are of direct assistance to industry in dealing with the management of change.

Mr. Bercow: The verdict of the director general of the British Chambers of Commerce, Chris Humphries, is that
the Government has dramatically increased the regulatory burdens that threaten small business competitiveness.
In the Queen's speech of 1999, however, the Government promised to
address inappropriate and over-complex regulation … —[Official Report, 17 November 1999; Vol. 339, c. 5.]
In the light of those statements, is the right hon. Lady proud of the fact that, all this time later, the Regulatory Reform Bill has still not been given a Second Reading?

Mrs. Liddell: We heard from the hon. Member for Lichfield about the some of the regulations that the hon. Gentleman, and presumably other Opposition Members, would like the Government to get rid of. Those include measures on maternity pay and the national minimum wage. However, I am interested in conscious measures that have a direct relevance to ordinary people as they go about their lives.
Opposition Members are determined to ignore the fact that the Government have been prepared to act to assist business. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) is parroting on, but he could not even manage to make a speech in this debate. His remarks will not change our attitude in any way. We make no apologies for introducing improved workers' rights, as such rights are an important part of a civilised society.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) spoke about the need to extend management development and training. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) made the same point. Management development and training are a key aspect of a knowledge-driven economy. Such an economy is not only about increasing technical skills, but about ensuring that our businesses have the best possible management and leadership skills. I take on board the point made by my hon. Friend in that respect. He also made a telling point about the need for flexible skills in a changing economy—a concern that was also mentioned by Opposition Members. That issue underpins every aspect of the Government's economic, industrial and education policy.
The hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire spoke about the sorts of regulations and measures the Government see as positive. The CBI recognises the work

that we are doing through the regional development agencies, which are the instruments that allow us to provide assistance at the very sharp end.

Mr. Alan Duncan: Ghastly things.

Mrs. Liddell: The hon. Gentleman uses the word "ghastly". That is what he thinks about giving direct assistance to parts of the country that require such help as they cope with economic change.
The Government understand the challenges faced by manufacturing industry, but we cannot wish them away. Opposition Members have repeatedly referred to the euro. They fail to recognise that their policy is not only economically illiterate, but does nothing to help manufacturing industry to plan for the future. We recognise the values of a successful single currency, but the economic preconditions must be right. Of course, Opposition Members say no to the single currency, or at least that it will not be introduced for a period that will be decided arbitrarily.
The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) spoke about the aerospace industry, but he failed to acknowledge the 22,000 additional jobs that are being created in British Aerospace. [Interruption.] It is BAE to which I am specifically referring. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley also failed to point out that 55.9 per cent. fewer people were on the unemployment register in his constituency in 2000 than there were when the Government were elected. That was helped by a further drop of 3.6 per cent. He failed also to recognise that we are dealing with a modern economy and creating jobs and opportunities. He had some cheek to speak to us about Ravenscraig. I represent one of the constituencies affected by Ravenscraig. It took a Labour Government to bring about the changes being made to the site, which are transforming it into a section of Lanarkshire that will be a beacon for all of Scotland. It was the actions of the Conservative party that closed Ravenscraig in the first place. Perhaps he would like to take up the matter with my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Roy), who worked as a shop steward in the Ravenscraig plant at the time in question.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East asked about information and consultation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced only last week that we will review all UK arrangements affecting collective redundancies. That review will consider whether current laws are working and, in particular, whether more should be done to promote effective consultation with employees. We will involve both the Trades Union Congress and the CBI. That is a sensible way forward that does not resemble the jingoistic, knee-jerk response of Opposition Members. As I said, they have only one killer proposal: putting somebody else on to a committee. Opposition Members do not understand manufacturing industry. If they did, they would be ashamed to come to the House in view of their record. From 1979 onwards, 3 million manufacturing jobs disappeared.
We will address the difficulties of parts of manufacturing industry that are suffering through changes in the global economy and in their industries. However, we shall also celebrate those manufacturing industries that


are growing and exporting, and form part of the knowledge-based economy. In partnership, we will ensure that stability, a sound economy and the sort of economic climate in which companies can plan and grow will lead to more jobs and improved competitiveness.
I urge the House to reject the motion and support the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
The House divided: Ayes 171, Noes 286.

Division No. 84]
[7 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Allan, Richard
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Green, Damian


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Greenway, John


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Grieve, Dominic


Baldry, Tony
Hague, Rt Hon William


Ballard, Jackie
Hammond, Philip


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Harris, Dr Evan


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Harvey, Nick


Bercow, John
Hawkins, Nick


Beresford, Sir Paul
Hayes, John


Blunt, Crispin
Heald, Oliver


Boswell, Tim
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Brand, Dr Peter
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Brazier, Julian
Horam, John


Breed, Colin
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Browning, Mrs Angela
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Burnett, John
Hunter, Andrew


Burns, Simon
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Burstow, Paul
Jenkin, Bernard


Butterfill, John
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Cable, Dr Vincent



Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)



Keetch, Paul


Cash, William
Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)


Chidgey, David



Chope, Christopher
Key, Robert


Clappison, James
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Collins, Tim
Kirkwood, Archy


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Cran, James
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Curry, Rt Hon David
Lansley, Andrew


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Leigh, Edward


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Letwin, Oliver


Day, Stephen
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Lidington, David


Duncan, Alan
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Duncan Smith, Iain
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Loughton, Tim


Evans, Nigel
Luff, Peter


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Faber, David
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fabricant, Michael
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Fallon, Michael
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Fearn, Ronnie
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Flight, Howard
McLoughlin, Patrick


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Madel, Sir David


Foster, Don (Bath)
Malins, Humfrey


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Mates, Michael


Fox, Dr Liam
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Fraser, Christopher
May, Mrs Theresa


Gale, Roger
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Garnier, Edward
Moore, Michael



George, Andrew (St Ives)
Moss, Malcolm


Gibb, Nick
Nicholls, Patrick


Gidley, Sandra
Norman, Archie


Gill, Christopher
Oaten, Mark





O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Swayne, Desmond


Öpik, Lembit
Syms, Robert


Ottaway, Richard
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Page, Richard
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Paice, James
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Pickles, Eric
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)



Prior, David
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Randall, John
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Rendel, David
Tredinnick, David


Robathan, Andrew
Trend, Michael


Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Tyler, Paul


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Tyrie, Andrew



Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Viggers, Peter


Ruffley, David
Walter, Robert


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Waterson, Nigel


St Aubyn, Nick
Wells, Bowen


Sanders, Adrian
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Sayeed, Jonathan
Whittingdale, John


Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Shepherd, Richard
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Willetts, David


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Willis, Phil


Soames, Nicholas
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Spicer, Sir Michael
Yeo, Tim


Spring, Richard
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Streeter, Gary
Mr. James Gray and


Stunell, Andrew
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cawsey, Ian


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Clapham, Michael


Ainger, Nick
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Allen, Graham
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)
Clelland, David



Clwyd, Ann


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Coaker, Vernon


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Coffey, Ms Ann


Ashton, Joe
Cohen, Harry


Atherton, Ms Candy
Coleman, Iain


Atkins, Charlotte
Colman, Tony


Bailey, Adrian
Connarty, Michael


Barron, Kevin
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Bayley, Hugh
Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Cooper, Yvette


Begg, Miss Anne
Corbett, Robin


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Cousins, Jim


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Crausby, David


Bennett, Andrew F
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Benton, Joe
Cummings, John


Bermingham, Gerald
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)


Berry, Roger



Betts, Clive
Dalyell, Tam


Blackman, Liz
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Blears, Ms Hazel
Darvill, Keith


Blizzard, Bob
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Davidson, Ian


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Borrow, David
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Dawson, Hilton


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Dean, Mrs Janet


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Denham, John


Browne, Desmond
Dismore, Andrew


Buck, Ms Karen
Dobbin, Jim


Burden, Richard
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Donohoe, Brian H


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Doran, Frank



Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Dowd, Jim


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Drew, David


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Drown, Ms Julia


Caplin, Ivor
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Casale, Roger
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Caton, Martin
Edwards, Huw






Efford, Clive
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Linton, Martin


Ennis, Jeff
Lock, David


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Love, Andrew


Fisher, Mark
McAvoy, Thomas


Fitzpatrick, Jim
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


Flint, Caroline



Follett, Barbara
Macdonald, Calum


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
McDonnell, John


Foulkes, George
McIsaac, Shona


Galloway, George
Mackinlay, Andrew


Gapes, Mike
McNulty, Tony


George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)
Mactaggart, Fiona


Gibson, Dr Ian
McWalter, Tony


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McWilliam, John


Godman, Dr Norman A
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Godsiff, Roger
Mallaber, Judy


Goggins, Paul
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Grogan, John
Martlew, Eric


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Maxton, John


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Hanson, David
Merron, Gillian


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Healey, John
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Miller, Andrew


Hendrick, Mark
Mitchell, Austin


Hepburn, Stephen
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Heppell, John
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hesford, Stephen
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Morley, Elliot


Hill, Keith
Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Mudie, George


Hood, Jimmy
Mullin, Chris


Hope, Phil
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hopkins, Kelvin
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Howells, Dr Kim
Norris, Dan


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Humble, Mrs Joan
Olner, Bill


Hutton, John
O'Neill, Martin


Iddon, Dr Brian
Pearson, Ian


Illsley, Eric
Pickthall, Colin


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Pike, Peter L


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Pond, Chris


Jamieson, David
Pope, Greg


Jenkins, Brian
Powell, Sir Raymond


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)



Prescott, Rt Hon John


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Primarolo, Dawn


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Prosser, Gwyn


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Purchase, Ken


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Quinn, Lawrie


Joyce, Eric
Rammell, Bill


Keeble, Ms Sally
Raynsford, Nick


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)



Kemp, Fraser
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Khabra, Piara S
Rogers, Allan


Kidney, David
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Kilfoyle, Peter
Rooney, Terry


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Rowlands, Ted


Lammy, David
Ruane, Chris


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Ruddock, Joan


Laxton, Bob
Ryan, Ms Joan


Leslie, Christopher
Salter, Martin


Levitt, Tom
Sarwar, Mohammad


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Sawford, Phil


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Sedgemore, Brian





Shaw, Jonathan
Todd, Mark


Sheerman, Barry
Touhig, Don


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Trickett, Jon



Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Skinner, Dennis
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Tynan, Bill


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Walley, Ms Joan


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Watts, David


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
White, Brian


Soley, Clive
Wicks, Malcolm


Southworth, Ms Helen
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Squire, Ms Rachel



Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Steinberg, Gerry
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Wills, Michael


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Wilson, Brian


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Winnick, David


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Wood, Mike


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Woolas, Phil


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Worthington, Tony


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)



Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Wyatt, Derek


Temple-Morris, Peter



Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Tellers for the Noes:


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Mr. Mike Hall and


Timms, Stephen
Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—

The House divided: Ayes 313, Noes 132.

Division No. 85]
[7.15 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)


Ainger, Nick
Browne, Desmond


Allan, Richard
Buck, Ms Karen


Allen, Graham
Burden, Richard


Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)
Burnett, John



Burstow, Paul


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Byers, Rt Hon Stephen


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Cable, Dr Vincent


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Caborn, Rt Hon Richard


Ashton, Joe
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)


Atkins, Charlotte



Bailey, Adrian
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Ballard, Jackie
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Barron, Kevin
Caplin, Ivor


Bayley, Hugh
Casale, Roger


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Caton, Martin


Begg, Miss Anne
Cawsey, Ian


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Chidgey, David


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Clapham, Michael


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Bennett, Andrew F
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Benton, Joe
Clelland, David


Bermingham, Gerald
Clwyd, Ann


Berry, Roger
Coaker, Vernon


Betts, Clive
Coffey, Ms Ann


Blackman, Liz
Cohen, Harry


Blears, Ms Hazel
Coleman, Iain


Blizzard, Bob
Colman, Tony


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Connarty, Michael


Borrow, David
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Cooper, Yvette


Brand, Dr Peter
Corbett, Robin


Breed, Colin
Cousins, Jim






Crausby, David
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Illsley, Eric


Cummings, John
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Jamieson, David


Darvill, Keith
Jenkins, Brian


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Davidson, Ian
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)



Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Dawson, Hilton
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Dean, Mrs Janet
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Denham, John
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Dismore, Andrew
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Dobbin, Jim
Joyce, Eric


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Keeble, Ms Sally


Donohoe, Brian H
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Doran, Frank
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Dowd, Jim
Keetch, Paul


Drew, David
Kemp, Fraser


Drown, Ms Julia
Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Khabra, Piara S


Edwards, Huw
Kidney, David


Efford, Clive
Kilfoyle, Peter


Ellman, Mrs Louise
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Ennis, Jeff
Kirkwood, Archy


Fearn, Ronnie
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Lammy, David


Fisher, Mark
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Laxton, Bob


Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna
Leslie, Christopher


Flint, Caroline
Levitt, Tom


Follett, Barbara
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Linton, Martin


Foulkes, George
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Gapes, Mike
Lock, David



Love, Andrew


George, Andrew (St Ives)
McAvoy, Thomas


George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Gibson, Dr Ian
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


Gidley, Sandra



Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Macdonald, Calum


Godman, Dr Norman A
McDonnell, John


Godsiff, Roger
McIsaac, Shona


Goggins, Paul
Mackinlay, Andrew


Golding, Mrs Llin
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McNulty, Tony


Grogan, John
Mactaggart, Fiona


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
McWillian, John


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Hanson, David
Mallaber, Judy


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Marsder, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Harris, Dr Evan
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Harvey, Nick
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Healey, John
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Martlew, Eric


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Maxton, John


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Hendrick, Mark
Merron, Gillian


Hepburn, Stephen
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Heppell, John
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)



Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Hesford, Stephen

Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Miller, Andrew


Hill, Keith
Mitchell, Austin


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hood, Jimmy
Moore, Michael


Hope, Phil
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hopkins, Kelvin
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Morley, Elliot


Howells, Dr Kim
Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Mudie, George


Humble, Mrs Joan
Mullin, Chris


Hutton, John
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)





Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Soley, Clive


Norris, Dan
Southworth, Ms Helen


Oaten, Mark
Squire, Ms Rachel


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Olner, Bill
Steinberg, Gerry


O'Neill, Martin
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Öpik, Lembit
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Pearson, Ian
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Pickthall, Colin
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Pike, Peter L
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Pond, Chris
Stunell, Andrew


Pope, Greg
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Powell, Sir Raymond
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)



Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Primarolo, Dawn
Temple-Morris, Peter


Prosser, Gwyn
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Purchase, Ken
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Quinn, Lawrie
Timms, Stephen


Raynsford, Nick
Todd, Mark


Rendel, David
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)
Touhig, Don



Trickett, Jon


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Rogers, Allan
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Rooney, Terry
Tyler, Paul


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Tynan, Bill


Rowlands, Ted
Walley, Ms Joan


Ruane, Chris
Watts, David


Ruddock, Joan
Webb, Steve


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
White, Brian


Ryan, Ms Joan
Wicks, Malcolm


Salter, Martin
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Sanders, Adrian



Sarwar, Mohammad
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Savidge, Malcolm
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Sawford, Phil
Willis, Phil


Sedgemore, Brian
Wills, Michael


Shaw, Jonathan
Winnick, David


Sheerman, Barry
Wood, Mike


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Woolas, Phil


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Worthington, Tony


Skinner, Dennis
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Wyatt, Derek


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)



Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Mr. Mike Hall and


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Mr. Robert Ainsworth.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Day, Stephen


Baldry, Tony
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Bercow, John
Duncan, Alan


Beresford, Sir Paul
Duncan Smith, Iain


Body, Sir Richard
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Boswell, Tim
Evans, Nigel


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Brazier, Julian
Faber, David


Browning, Mrs Angela
Fabricant, Michael


Burns, Simon
Fallon, Michael


Butterfill, John
Flight, Howard


Cash, William
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Chope, Christopher
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Clappison, James
Fox, Dr Liam


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Fraser, Christopher


Collins, Tim
Gale, Roger


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Garnier, Edward


Cran, James
Gibb, Nick


Curry, Rt Hon David
Gill, Christopher






Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Moss, Malcolm


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Nicholls, Patrick


Green, Damian
Norman, Archie


Greenway, John
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Grieve, Dominic
Ottaway, Richard


Hague, Rt Hon William
Paice, James


Hammond, Philip
Pickles, Eric


Hawkins, Nick
Prior, David


Hayes, John
Randall, John


Heald, Oliver
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Robathan, Andrew


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Horam, John
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Ruffley, David


Hunter, Andrew
Sayeed, Jonathan


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Jenkin, Bernard
Shepherd, Richard


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)



Soames, Nicholas


Key, Robert
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


King, Rt Hon Tom (Brigwater)
Spicer, Sir Michael


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Streeter, Gary


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Swayne, Desmond


Lansley, Andrew
Syms, Robert


Leigh, Edward
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Letwin, Oliver
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Lidington, David
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Tredinnick, David


Loughton, Tim
Trend, Michael


Luff, Peter
Tyrie, Andrew


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Viggers, Peter


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Walter, Robert


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Waterson, Nigel


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Wells, Bowen


McLoughlin, Patrick
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Madel, Sir David
Whittingdale, John


Malins, Humfrey
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Mates, Michael
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Willetts, David


May, Mrs Theresa
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)





Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)
Tellers for the Noes:


Yeo, Tim
Mr. James Gray and


Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

Question accordingly agreed to.
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House welcomes the low inflation and low interest rates that this Government has brought and which bring the economic stability needed by the manufacturing sector; welcomes the measures that this Government has taken to encourage investment, innovation and productivity which will particularly help manufacturing businesses; welcomes the Government's approach in helping businesses and people through structural change as opposed to the previous Government's laissez-faire approach; and condemns the Opposition's record on manufacturing, where employment declined by 2¾ million during its period in office.

DEFERRED DIVISIONS

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I now have to announce the results of Divisions deferred from a previous day.
On the motion on Sport, the Ayes were 318, the Noes 5, so the motion was agreed to.
On the motion on Legal Aid and Advice, the Ayes were 427, the Noes 4, so the motion was agreed to.
On the motion on Local Government, the Ayes were 426, the Noes 7, so the motion was agreed to.
On the motion on Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism, the Ayes were 433, the Noes 1, so the motion was agreed to.
On the motion on European Communities, the Ayes were 425, the Noes 8, so the motion was agreed to.
[The Division Lists are published at the end of today's debates.]

Public Health

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Dr. Liam Fox: I beg to move,
That this House notes with concern the failures of Her Majesty's Government's public health policy, particularly relating to immunisation and communicable diseases; and calls on the Government to consider urgent measures to reduce the risks to public safety and to take urgent action to allay public concerns.
When we debate health in the House, we often debate the structure and financing of the national health service, rather than considering health policy in detail. Health policy is an issue that we should discuss more. In this necessarily short debate, I intend to concentrate on areas of public health policy about which there is public anxiety, or in which I believe there to be a lack of information or a need for correction in the Government's position.
Those who take an interest in these issues expect public health policy to have more all-party support than most others. Indeed, I hope that this will be a matter on which the public can take reassurance from the agreement on both sides of the House when we come to decisions on the basis of the proper scientific evidence before us. That is why we have tabled a relatively modest motion on the failures, rather than the failure, of the Government's policy on public health.
In that spirit, I shall begin by speaking on immunisation. We need to congratulate the Government and the Department of Health on the success of the influenza vaccination campaign, and on the campaign relating to meningitis C, both of which we supported. Indeed, it shows exactly what can be done when the Department, through its advertising agencies, makes great play of such policy. We look forward to the development of a pneumococcus vaccine, for example, which offers great potential for advertising campaigns.
There has been great focus in recent days on MMR. As the House will know, MMR is the vaccine given to protect children against measles, mumps and rubella. There has also been much media coverage in recent weeks of possible links between the MMR vaccination and the incidence of both autism and Crohn's disease. We believe that MMR is still the best and the safest way to protect children from those diseases and that there is no evidence published that proves a link between MMR and those diseases. None the less, the vaccination uptake rate has declined.
The World Health Organisation recommends 95 per cent. as the figure needed to ensure herd immunity—in other words, that is the point at which the immunisation of others protects the rest. Immunisation reached 92.5 per cent. in 1995, but has fallen to 88.3 per cent. More important, the children who did not receive the vaccine when the health scare came to light are now reaching school age, and school is an environment in which the transmission of measles is much more common.
It is worth pointing out to those who fear MMR that 1 million children die from measles worldwide each year. In developing countries with poor vaccination programmes and poor nutrition rates, measles is an even

more severe disease. It is rare in the United Kingdom but, even here, complications are common when children catch it. Those complications include a severe cough and breathing difficulties, pneumonia and eye infections. Most are caused by secondary bacterial infections, but there is a one in 1,000 chance of measles leading to encephalitis from which three in 10 will die.
It is important that those who make a choice about immunisation understand the relative risks that they may encounter. Those who do not die from encephalitis can suffer severe disabilities, including brain damage. Ireland is having similar immunisation problems. In 1999, there were more than 1,500 cases of measles and hundreds of young children had to be hospitalised, some suffering from dangerous inflammation of the brain. Two died, and many were left with long-lasting disabilities.
Another risk is that rubella and mumps will return. One mumps sufferer in 25 will suffer a degree of hearing loss. Before MMR was introduced, mumps was the most important cause of viral meningitis in children. We forget such statistics at our peril. Equally, before 1988 there were more than 40 cases of congenital rubella syndrome every year, which is not an insignificant number.
We need to immunise at a level sufficient to prevent any possible epidemic. We are below the level required, and recent events in Ireland and the Netherlands show the tragic consequences of failure to immunise. I believe that the scientific evidence clearly shows that MMR is safe and we are not convinced that there is any link between autism and MMR. However, many members of the public and some in the medical and nursing professions believe otherwise. That failure of confidence in the programme is resulting in a considerable public health risk.
I wrote to the Secretary of State on 1 December 1999 and, for the sake of giving information to the House, it is worth referring to that letter and his reply. I said:
During our time in our relative positions, we will no doubt have a large number of issues where we will profoundly disagree.
Well, that was right. I added:
I hope, however, that in other areas, notably public health policy, we will be able to work together for the common good. One of these areas must be childhood immunisation and I know that you share my concerns about the low levels of MMR immunisation and the consequent risk of a measles epidemic. There has been a great deal of scientifically dubious information put into the public domain creating scare stories recently. The only possible outcome of this is a greater risk to all children of a measles outbreak which, as you know, can cause severe damage even in healthy populations like those in the UK.
On behalf of the Opposition, I can assure you that we would be only too happy to undertake any joint initiative which shows that politicians can put party political differences behind them when important principles of public health are at stake.
I hope you will accept this offer in the spirit in which it is offered.
The Secretary of State thanked me and said that he would get in touch with the Minister for Public Health to decide how we could take forward an all-party initiative on improving uptake. I am sorry that it has taken longer than I would have liked for the Government to suggest the programme to educate the public about MMR, which I welcomed this week.

Mr. Stephen Hesford: Will the hon. Gentleman deal with this point? He may know that I am secretary of the all-party group on primary care and public health. We organised a meeting in June on that very topic.
He was invited, as was my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health, who attended. We had a good meeting to take evidence, but I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman did not attend. Given his remarks about a bilateral approach to the issue, where was he that evening?

Dr. Fox: Considering the spirit and the tone of my remarks, the hon. Gentleman does himself and the House no service by making such a puerile point. The position of the Opposition was and is clear.
The Secretary of State will be aware that many people will be listening to the debate, hoping for reassurance. What would the Government's position be should MMR rates continue to fall? I do not ask him for a figure at which he might decide to alter policy because that would only encourage those who are sceptical not to opt for immunisation. However, I put it to him that if trends continue to fall, he may face the extraordinarily unpalatable decision of accepting single-dose vaccines as preferable to no vaccine at all.
I understand that that would not be an easy choice in terms of public health because the Secretary of State would not want to send out a wrong signal that might encourage people to believe that MMR is not safe. Nor do I believe that it would be responsible to leave people no option should parents decide that they were not satisfied about the safety of MMR, perhaps because of stories that they have read in the newspapers. In a spirit of co-operation, will he seriously consider how the Government would respond in such a situation?
On tuberculosis, the problem is twofold. The school immunisation programme has been suspended in many parts of the country. At the same time, the number of TB cases is rising appreciably. The BCG vaccination was introduced in the United Kingdom in 1953, but the number of vaccinations fell from 476,000 in 1998–99 to only 196,000 in 1999–2000 due to the shortage of the vaccine, which we all understand.
The Government's most recent position was set out in a written answer on 8 January:
Routine immunisation of all school children at age 10–14 was suspended in September 1999 due to severe manufacturing problems encountered by the sole United Kingdom licensed source, Celltech Medeva.
The Department is doing all it can to secure a robust supply of UK licensed and batch released BCG vaccine, and will announce as soon as possible when the routine schools programme can resume. All those who missed their BCG vaccination due to the suspension of the programme will be recalled as part of a catch up programme.—[Official Report, 9 January 2001; Vol. 360, c. 539W.]
I ask the Secretary of State to give us an idea of when the programme may resume because we are all receiving letters from concerned parents, especially those in areas where the health authority policy has for some time been not to immunise and the rate of TB infection has risen.
Tuberculosis has increasingly been associated with areas of urban decay. In 1998, the national survey of TB found that 56 per cent. of cases were in people born abroad, many in Africa. According to the Public Health Laboratory Service, there were 6,143 notified cases in 1999, 40 per cent. of which were in London. That has a massive implication for how the public health service is organised in the capital.
One major problem is lack of staff. Only 14 per cent. of the 43 health districts with the highest TB rates meet the minimum staffing standards. In Newham, for example, there are only two nurses to deal with 240 cases. The British Thoracic Society recommends one nurse per 40 cases. There are also problems with maintaining screening of asylum seekers—only 80 per cent, of asylum seekers at Heathrow are screened, for example. I should like to know what discussions the Secretary of State has had and what measures might be taken to increase that figure, especially for those coming from high-risk areas.
The number of cases of multi-drug resistant TB is increasing: there were 50 in the UK last year. A patient with multi-drug resistant TB costs the NHS an average of more than £60,000. That TB is usually caused by unmonitored patients failing to take the drug treatment correctly and developing resistance to effective anti-TB drugs. The Public Health Laboratory Service has reported a cluster of drug-resistant TB in north London. Twenty-six cases have been resistant to Isoniazid—25 in north London and one in south London. Again, that is an issue of concern. The House would welcome any comments that the Secretary of State can make in his reply on the implications for the organisation of health care services in London.
The next issue that I want to touch on briefly is CJD. There are two separate issues in this regard: the first is haemophiliacs, and the second is the measures that the Government introduced over Christmas and new year. Among haemophiliacs—I am sure that all hon. Members will have received correspondence on this—there is a feeling that there is unfairness in the United Kingdom. Patients with haemophilia in Scotland and Wales can obtain genetically pure recombinant factor 8, which poses no risk to the recipient. However, haemophiliacs in England still receive blood-derived products, which necessarily entail a higher risk. Haemophilia groups have made major representations, and I should like to ask the Secretary of State what measures the Department intends to take in future to minimise the risks for haemophiliacs.
Haemophiliacs have already had to endure a far higher risk of most diseases than any of us will ever have to endure. Having run the gauntlet of hepatitis and HIV, it is intolerable that they should have to go through further risk to save what is not a large amount of money for the NHS. At the very least, patients in England should be brought into line with those in Scotland and Wales on what is available from a publicly funded service.
Will the Government provide further information about the decision on tonsillectomies and single-use instruments that they announced over the Christmas recess? Last November, John Collinge of the Imperial College school of medicine claimed that half the surgical instruments used for tonsil operations could be contaminated by variant CJD. The Department issued guidelines and announced at Christmas that tonsillectomies would be performed using single-use instruments at the end of this year.
Concern has arisen because prisons, which are believed to cause variant CJD, are far more resistant to cleaning and heat sterilisation than normal bacteria and viruses. The tonsils are believed to be infected with variant CJD before obvious symptoms of the disease appear. It would therefore be possible for a surgeon to carry out a


tonsillectomy on an apparently healthy person, contaminate his instruments and pass the infection on to someone else.
The infectious protein has also been found in the spleen, thymus, brain and lymph nodes. From the current debate on MMR, we are all aware that, if the public believe that information is not being made fully available, they are far less likely to listen to any messages coming from the Department. The Secretary of State may not be able to tell us this evening, but perhaps he can publish information and advice he has received about the relative risk of the operations that I have mentioned and the capacity of different tissues to harbour the protein that causes CJD. The more open we are about this debate and the more information that the public can have at the earliest possible date, the more likely we are to persuade them of the safety of this health policy.

Mr. Phil Hope: The hon. Gentleman talked about providing public information and people knowing the issues surrounding all those communicable diseases. In my constituency, we have established the sure start programme, in which parents of very young children get advice and support and go somewhere where they can talk about the issues among themselves and to health professionals. Would the Opposition, if they were ever to come to power, keep or abolish the £500 million spend on the sure start programme, which is doing so much good in my constituency?

Dr. Fox: I am not aware of the details of the programme in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but similar programmes work very well in other constituencies. Where publicly funded information programmes—established by that mechanism or other mechanisms which I should be happy to examine—ensure that the public feel confident about the information that they receive, that should be encouraged. This is a simple message about trying to reassure the public.
That is one of the biggest problems that we have as politicians. In the light of CJD and the fact that the public are necessarily sceptical about the evidence that scientists give them, Members of Parliament need to reassure them by every possible mechanism if they are to have confidence in public health policy and be part of the numbers required to make that policy work.
We also need to look at the resources provided for sterilisation units in our hospitals. We have heard recent examples of hospitals cancelling routine surgery because of a lack of confidence in their sterilisation equipment. Those things need to be considered as part of a wider policy review.
Finally, will the Secretary of State tell the House more about the details of the Government's sexual health strategy, which we have been promused for some time? However, according to the Public Health Laboratory Service, there has recently been a rapid increase in acute sexually transmitted disease infections. Since 1995, cases of chlamydia, for example, have risen by 76 per cent.; gonorrhoea by 55 per cent.; syphilis by 54 per cent.; and genital warts by 20 per cent. There have also been outbreaks of infectious syphilis in the homosexual community in Brighton and Manchester. Those trends are extremely worrying.
Will the Secretary of State deal with those issues in his reply? Will he tell us about the Government's intended approach to MMR and what policies on prevention and

treatment they will introduce to deal with the increasing number of TB cases? Will the Government ensure that recombinant factor 8 will be made available to all haemophiliacs in England? Will the Secretary of State publish all the evidence on the relative risks of the transmissibility of CJD, and put that into the public domain? Will he also publish details of the Government's sexual health strategy, along with details about funding implications and targets?
We often have extremely partisan debates in the House and it is relatively unusual for us to have potentially consensual ones. However, public health is of concern to us all.

Mr. Christopher Leslie: rose—

Dr. Fox: I am not giving way.
I hope that the areas that I have outlined to the Secretary of State will make it clear that, potentially, there are areas of wide agreement between us. Failures in public health policy, particularly in relation to communicable diseases, are not acceptable. Those diseases put everyone at unnecessary risk. We can stop that, and we know how; it is simply a matter of having the will to do so. The Government will have our support if they put those measures in place. The Secretary of State now has a chance to ask for that support.

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
condemns the widening health inequalities between 1979 and 1997 and the failure of Conservative governments to acknowledge health inequality or address the growing health gap between rich and poor; and supports initiatives to improve public health and tackle health inequalities, including new vaccination programmes for influenza and Meningitis C, the allocation of an extra £450 million to improve cancer and coronary heart disease services in England, the extension of the breast screening programme to women aged between 65 and 70, the strategy to reduce teenage pregnancies, the largest-ever investment in smoking cessation services and the proposed ban on tobacco advertising and sponsorship.
It is a top priority for the Government to improve the health of the nation, as the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) rightly said. Our country's vaccination programme is the first line of defence against serious disease and illness. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, there is much of which we should be proud. We are the first country in the world—indeed, the NHS is the first health care system in the world—to have introduced the new meningitis C vaccine. The vaccine programme is the biggest that the country has seen since the polio vaccine was introduced four decades years ago. My right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) was responsible for making that brave and right decision, which has saved lives. Already, about 500 cases have been prevented and we estimate that 50 deaths have been avoided. That will improve even further now that the programme is completed.
The hon. Member for Woodspring alluded also to the flu vaccine programme. As he knows, flu vaccine has been made available for the very first time to people 65 and over. In the three months to January 2001—thanks to the hard work of family doctors, practice nurses, health authorities and others—65 per cent. of the eligible


population of over-65s have been immunised. When we set ourselves a target of 60 per cent. immunisation, some people said that it could not be done. It has been done. Indeed, the target has been exceeded. That is extremely welcome news.

Dr. Evan Harris: I support the Government's programme to deal with meningitis. However, does the Secretary of State realise that, because of the smaller number of meningitis C cases, there is a slight danger that the public will become complacent about the other strains of meningitis? The number of cases of other strains of meningitis has increased. The danger of headlines proclaiming "Meningitis solved", rather than "The meningitis C situation is improved" is that fewer people will be able to recognise the symptoms. There is still a long way to go on those other strains.

Mr. Milburn: The hon. Gentleman is quite right, and he speaks with some knowledge on these issues. As he is probably aware from the chief medical officer's press release early in the new year, that is precisely what Professor Donaldson was warning us against. We have made real progress on meningitis C, but a vaccine is not yet available for the other strains. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we have to make more progress on those strains; of course we do.
The example of meningitis C demonstrates the importance of technology. The case is often made against the national health service that it lags behind other health services which have a better proven record in dealing with some health issues. Sadly, even in this country, people very often assume that the NHS is not up to scratch. However, meningitis C is a case in which the national health service has shown that it is leading the world, and that is capable of leading the world providing that we have the courage and the conviction to do the right thing, which is to put in the investment.
It is sometimes risky to be at the leading edge. My right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras took that risk, and it was the right risk to take. The consequence is that lives have been saved.
The hon. Member for Woodspring also raised the issue of MMR vaccination. It is a very serious issue, and I should like to deal with it in some detail. I should start by saying that many parents understandably feel confused, and sometimes fearful, about the MMR vaccine. I fully understand those concerns, to which all hon. Members should listen extremely carefully.
For us as parents, there are always real dilemmas when it comes to protecting our children. All of us want to do what is right by our children. As parents that is our responsibility. We want to obtain the best advice and the best information so that we can make the best decisions for our children. There is also no doubt that reassurances from politicians—and, in the past, from scientists and others, most notably in relation to the BSE scandal—have made people more sceptical about the advice and information that they receive whether from government or from other quarters. That is just a fact of life, and we all have to deal with it as responsibly as possible. That goes for hon. Members and certainly for the media who report on events in this place.
The Government also have a responsibility to do what is right. We have to make decisions and policy according to the best evidence available—as the hon. Member for Woodspring was calling for us to do as recently as Monday, in our debate on the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill.
If I may, I should like to read to the House the following statement:
MMR is a very effective vaccine with an excellent safety record. It is recommended by the World Health Organisation and used in over 30 countries around the world. We believe that the support for the MMR vaccine among health professionals remains exceptionally high—despite recent claims to the contrary.
All of the major health organisations in the UK support the MMR programme. Prior to the introduction of MMR there were thousands of cases of measles, mumps and rubella—and dozens of children died. This need not happen again. MMR is scientifically proven to be the safest and most effective way to protect children from disease.
The new report by Dr. Wakefield does not present any evidence to change this view. There is a real concern about his advice that the vaccines should be given separately, since children would be left unnecessarily unprotected from these potentially serious diseases. We strongly recommend that children are protected with MMR and not left at risk.
The vast majority of parents do get their children vaccinated but some parents remain concerned. We want to listen to these concerns and to work with parents and health professionals to provide reassurance and the best possible advice.
That is not my reassurance. It is not ministerial advice to parents. It is not a statement by one politician or party or by a group of politicians or parties. It is the joint statement recommencing the use of MMR signed at the chief medical officer's national summit, on Monday. It was issued jointly by the Royal College of General Practitioners, the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing, the Faculty of Public Health Medicine, the United Kingdom Public Health Association, the Royal College of Midwives, the Community Practitioners and Health Visitors Association, Unison, Sense, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, the Public Health Laboratory Service and the Medicines Control Agency.
Those are not the only organisations sharing that view. Just today, the World Health Organisation issued a statement that said:
WHO strongly endorses the use of MMR vaccine on the grounds of its convincing record of safety and efficacy.
The combination vaccine is recommended rather than monovalent presentation when available and the disease burden justifies its use.
There has been no new scientific evidence that would suggest impaired safety of MMR. On the contrary, all results from vaccine trials published reaffirm the high safety and efficacy of MMR vaccine.
The hon. Member for Woodspring asked for the facts. Those are the facts of the situation.

Miss Julie Kirkbride: The right hon. Gentleman has to understand that he can quote as many organisations as he likes, but some parents will still strongly believe that they should not give their child the MMR vaccine. For those parents, the Government have closed the door on the option of single vaccines. If we want to increase immunisation rates, surely it would be sensible to allow those who wish to have single vaccines to have them.

Mr. Milburn: I shall address the issue of parental choice in a moment or two if the hon. Lady—who I know has concerns of her own—will bear with me.
The hon. Member for Woodspring asked about coverage. As he knows, the coverage situation is not static at all. Rates of MMR vaccination started to fall in 1996, I think, and certainly they have fallen since. As he knows, coverage at age five is 93 per cent, but coverage at age 2 is 88 per cent. We know that those rates are not high enough and that action must be taken to increase them, to avoid precisely the type of measles outbreak that occurred very recently in Ireland, most notably in Dublin.
There is barely a country in the world that prescribes single vaccines. Japan is the only country that I know of that prescribes them. As the hon. Gentleman is well aware, between 1992 and 1997, Japan had, I think, 79 deaths from measles. In that period the United Kingdom had no deaths from measles. That is a salutary lesson for us all on the issue.

Miss Kirkbride: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Milburn: I am coming to the hon. Lady's point, if she will be patient just one moment longer.
The hon. Member for Woodspring asked what the Government have been doing in the past year or so, since he wrote to me on the matter and I replied to him commending his approach. In the past year, we have placed advertisements on television. Posters and leaflets on MMR have been sent to every GP practice. Additionally, parents have received direct mailshots on the MMR vaccination. As he knows, there will also be a major public information campaign to inform parents of the facts about MMR so that they can make the best choices for their children. That campaign is supported by all the organisations that I mentioned earlier.
The policy that some people advocate—to put the health of children at risk by use of single vaccines—is fundamentally not about choice, but about chance. Parents always have the choice about whether to have their children vaccinated. However, I should make it clear that where licensed single jabs exist, or where unlicensed single jabs are legally provided, we have not prevented their use. What the Government cannot do, however, is to endorse a choice that the experts clearly believe will put children's health and children's lives at greater risk. It would be irresponsible of us to promote an alternative on the NHS that leaves children's lives to chance.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Woodspring for the tone of his remarks this evening, which stands in some contrast to much of what he was saying only last week. I believe fundamentally that the position that his party has adopted has not allayed concerns but has, frankly, risked adding to them. If he wants to avoid damaging the case for MMR, I suggest that he gives unfettered support for the vaccine, without qualification.
This is a point not only for the hon. Gentleman but for some sections of the media to bear in mind. This is not a bandwagon for anyone in politics or outside to leap on. It is a serious public health issue that demands responsibility, not irresponsibility, on the part of every politician who is committed to improving the health of our children.
The same is true for some of the other issues that the hon. Gentleman raised. He raised serious issues concerning TB, sexual health and CJD. On TB, yes, it is true that cases have been rising. They have been rising

since the early 1990s. They are rising throughout the world. He asked what we have done in response. The Government have responded with a firm programme of action, including more surveillance, better screening, and now the development of more rapid diagnostic and drug susceptibility tests.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the availability of the BCG vaccine, which is indeed a serious issue. He knows that we hit production problems with the one company producing the vaccine. Sadly, that was outside our control. He might not know that we have now been able to resume vaccinating schoolchildren in London, which is the area of highest risk. We are pursuing the matter actively. There are, sadly, not many manufacturers of the vaccine around, but we are doing all we can, and I hope that we will be able to make progress before too long.

Dr. Fox: When?

Mr. Milburn: I cannot say as yet, because we are still pursuing the matter. If I could give the hon. Gentleman an answer, I would.
The hon. Gentleman asked about sexually transmitted infections. They have been increasing since 1995. For 16 to 19-year-olds, there was a 53 per cent. increase in cases of gonorrhoea and a 45 per cent. increase in cases of chlamydia between 1995 and 1997. That is why we are now piloting chlamydia screening for the first time, with a view to rolling it out across the country as a whole. That is also is why we have introduced a policy to offer all pregnant women an HIV test, to reduce maternal transmission. The early results are very encouraging, and I hope that we will be able to build on them. Those are the reasons why the Government's health promotion campaigns are so important.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the publication of our sexual health strategy. I very much hope that we will be able to publish it within the next couple of months. What we cannot have, in the House or elsewhere, is a situation whereby people rail against high levels of unwanted pregnancy and then oppose making contraception more accessible. To do so begins to fall off the Richter scale of cant and hypocrisy.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about recombinant factor 8. My ministerial colleague, Lord Hunt, is considering precisely the issues that he raised, and had a meeting with the Haemophilia Society today to discuss that, among other matters.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the publication of relative risk in relation to transmission of vCJD, particularly in surgery. The Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), has already given a commitment that we will seek to get that information into the public domain, and that is the right thing to do. Relative risk is always a difficult issue, but it must be right to make the public aware. We must get away from a situation whereby politicians pronounce things 100 per cent. safe. We have to talk the language of safest, and assess what the risk is. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser) is laughing—

Mr. Christopher Fraser: Not at what the right hon. Gentleman was saying.

Mr. Milburn: If it was a private joke between the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), perhaps they will share it with me.

Dr. Julian Lewis: I am delighted to share the joke. When the Secretary of State said that nothing was 100 per cent. safe, I observed to my hon. Friend that that included the job of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

Mr. Milburn: That was an extremely amusing joke. [HON. MEMBERS: "You asked for it."] I suppose I did—and I got it, as did the whole House.

Fiona Mactaggart: Does my right hon. Friend share my frustration at the fact that, 45 minutes into this debate, we have not even discussed the greatest threats to public health: coronary heart disease and cancer? Does he share my anger that, when the Conservatives were in power, death rates from those diseases among poorer people went up, so that someone in Slough is twice as likely to die from coronary heart disease as someone in the rest of the county, which is much more prosperous?

Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend makes a cogent and important point.
I think that I have answered the questions that the hon. Member for Woodspring asked.

Dr. Fox: There was one little point that the Secretary of State missed out. I am sure that the medical profession, as well as parents, would be interested in the possible availability, perhaps as soon as the end of this year, of pneumococcal vaccine. What are the Government's plans for rolling out that vaccine, given the success in controlling meningitis C?

Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health advises me that our position on new vaccines is that we will roll them out as quickly as we can, but we need first to check their effectiveness to ensure that the programmes that we institute have the impact that we want.
Improving public health is about getting the vaccination programmes right and ensuring that immunisation programmes are relevant. It is also about assuring the public that those programmes produce the right result. We all have a part to play in that. There is, however, a wider issue. As my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) rightly said, improving public health is also about tackling our country's biggest killers: cancer and coronary heart disease. It is about improving the health services that prevent illness as well as those that treat it. Fundamentally, it is about addressing the single most significant underlying cause of ill health and health inequality: the poverty that afflicts and divides our nation.
On cancer and heart disease, after decades of, frankly, shameful neglect, services are finally getting the investment that they need. This year, these life-saving services will get more investment than ever before: an extra £450 million. There will be more money for new

drugs, for new equipment, for more staff and for more operations. There will be new national standards for heart disease and cancer care. Over the next few years, patients will see in the NHS the fastest improving cancer services anywhere in Europe.
The hon. Member for Woodspring asked about preventive services. For the very youngest to the very oldest, such services are being expanded. They are receiving new investment. For the first time, newborn children are receiving hearing tests. Primary school children are being given free fruit as part of the biggest programme to support child nutrition since Mrs. Thatcher scrapped free school milk in the 1980s. Women aged over 65 will, for the first time, be screened for breast cancer. New screening programmes are planned for colorectal cancer and, when the technology is developed to make it effective, for prostate cancer too. Already in this country we now have the most comprehensive smoking cessation services anywhere in the world, available to the seven in 10 smokers who say that they want to give up smoking.

Miss Kirkbride: Tobacco consumption is going up.

Mr. Milburn: The hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) says, from a sedentary position, that tobacco consumption rates are rising. I am afraid that that is the factual inaccuracy peddled by the hon. Member for Woodspring in our debate on Monday. Although consumption rates were certainly rising for smokers overall right up to the point when the previous Government left office, the latest figures suggest that tobacco consumption is now falling. I believe that the measures that we have taken and that we plan to take—most notably the banning of tobacco advertising—will help protect the people who are most vulnerable to the dangers of smoking in the future. Those are young people, children and teenagers.
Underpinning all of our efforts to improve public health is the Government's commitment to address the causes of poverty that condemn so many to poorer health and shorter lives. This debate is about the public health agenda. The greatest public health challenges facing our country will never be addressed unless we deal with their fundamental causes—poverty of income and aspiration, lack of educational attainment and employment, and discrimination and social exclusion.
When we came to office, one child in five lived in a household where no one worked. Three million working-age people were out of work and had been dependent on benefits for two years or more. Four million children were living in poverty in 1995—three times the number 20 years before.
The health gap had widened too. In the late 1970s, death rates were over 53 per cent. higher among men in social classes 4 and 5 than among men in social classes 1 and 2. By the late 1980s, the health inequality gap had widened to 68 per cent. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bromsgrove thinks that that is something to smirk about—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. We cannot have a running conversation from a sedentary position.

Mr. Milburn: We all know the Conservative position on issues of poverty and inequality. The hon. Member for Woodspring summed it up when he said:
Poverty, poverty, poverty—la, la, la … it is just boring for Conservative Members.—[Official Report, 22 October 1992; Vol. 212, c. 636.]
Poverty might be boring for the hon. Gentleman and other Conservative Members, but it is a sad fact of life for very many of our constituents. It has direct health implications. We shall not make the progress towards securing the healthier nation that we want until we secure a fairer society. That is what the Government are committed to—opportunity for all, and improving health for all. We are making new investment in health services, in prevention as well as treatment, and new vaccination and screening programmes. All of that is coupled to the Government's national crusade to end child poverty in a generation.
That is the path to better public health, and we are making progress along it.

Mr. Nick Harvey: I welcome this opportunity to debate important issues of public health. Taken together, they constitute an agenda that should be the starting point for health debates in the House more often than is generally the case.
Although public health in Britain has improved over a long period of time, there is still a great deal to be worried about. Britain has the highest number of underweight babies in Europe. According to Government figures, there are 1 million children living below the poverty line who do not qualify for free school meals. Fuel poverty is still a problem too. According to latest figures from the National Energy Association, 8 million households cannot pay for the warmth that they need. Finally, the UK has the highest teenage pregnancy and birth rates in western Europe.
I welcome the NHS plan's attempt to address public health, and particularly the fact that there is to be more screening, although I believe that that needs to go even further and that more resources should be made available for capital expenditure in new technology. I also welcome the work of primary care groups and primary care trusts in identifying and registering those who are at greatest risk of ill health, and also the setting of national health inequalities targets.
It bears repeating that the state of public health depends on much more than just the state of the national health service. Much public policy in other Departments has a significant impact on public health outcomes. Equally, however, Britain's record on public health cannot be divorced from the state of the national health service. Many of our health problems stem from under-investment over a long period of time.
Many avoidable health problems have been exacerbated by a lack of nurses, and the lack of a co-ordinated public health programme that could have prevented many of the problems that the NHS has struggled to deal with. It is worth remembering that the number of nurses recruited fell from 37,000 in 1983 to 6,000 in 1995.
Other factors over the period also give cause for concern. In 1979, there were free sight tests, but people now pay £17 or £18 for the tests. Dental charges have risen 400 per cent. since 1979. Both those changes present significant barriers to health for those most in need of it—the poor. However, the charges make little significant contribution to the Exchequer.
As I say, many other factors beyond the immediate issues of the health service make an impact on public health. For example, the doubling in the crime rate, the disastrous public transport privatisations and deregulations, and the refusal—until this week—to implement a tobacco advertising ban were all significant public health failures of the past 20 years. It is only by addressing such background issues that we will bring about a significant improvement in levels and standards of public health.
I noted earlier that Britain has the highest rate of underweight babies in Europe, at 7 per cent. Lord Patel, a gynaecologist, says that he has
clearly demonstrated a strong link between low birth rate and the low socio-economic group of the mother.
Low birth weight has also been linked to adult diseases such as hypertension, heart disease and diabetes.
The Government should commission research into what constitutes a healthy income. Historically, rates have been based on political expediency, rather than on scientific principle.
Another concern has to do with school nurses, and the availability and quality of school health education programmes. We need at least another 500 school nurses, as teachers cannot be expected to provide health care as well as education. Dedicated expertise is required to meet the needs of the school-age population. In addition to the other postcode lotteries, we have a postcode lottery of health education. There must be a radical shake-up of the system, with better partnerships between the NHS, social services and local education authorities to ensure total availability to schools and their pupils of nurses and health visitors.
Liberal Democrats want there to be a statutory right for every child to have access to an independent health professional. We also want every school to have a named health professional provided through the local primary care group or primary care trust. In due course, we should like to see the creation of a national service framework on school health, with benchmarks and targets for improvement.
According to the Government's own figures, there are 1 million children living below the poverty line who do not qualify for free school meals. That is a cause for alarm, and it must constitute a priority for action. We support the Government's free fruit scheme for four to six-year-olds, but we hope that there will be scope to expand it to include older children. Malnutrition is a significant factor in health inequalities. Good eating habits and health education, supported at school, are vital.
Health inequalities must surely be one of the greatest concerns to all those with a sincere interest in public health. In the United Kingdom, people are twice as likely to die early in the poorest areas as in the richest, according to the UK Public Health Association.
Dentistry charges also promote inequalities. Access to NHS dentists is declining in many areas, as dentists drop out and move to private provision only. We believe that there is a need to do everything possible to bring more dentists back for at least part of their time into the NHS, to protect the poorest from ill health.
We also think that more help is needed in particular areas on the issue of water fluoridation, particularly in the light of York university's findings on its benefits.


Areas with fluoridated water, either natural or added by the water companies, show as little as half as much tooth decay as areas without.

Dr. Fox: Would the hon. Gentleman go all the way with that view? Is it his party's policy to recommend fluoridation throughout the United Kingdom?

Mr. Harvey: We think that fluoridation should be available and that it should be a matter for local decision. There are great natural differences in the water in different parts of the country. That provides a logic for there being local decisions. Local authorities should have a greater responsibility for public health and should be the bodies to take responsibility for it, if need be by taking account, through a referendum or by other means, of the wishes of the local population. We certainly believe that fluoridation should be available as an option in all areas throughout the country.
It is also very important for eye check-up charges to be abolished. There is no greater impediment to making any improvement in public health than charging people for basic, routine tests which should be provided free as a matter of course.
I mentioned that fuel poverty is still a real problem. According to the latest figures, 8 million households cannot afford to pay for the warmth that they need. One in five lone parents reports damp affecting his or her children's health, and 22 per cent. of lone parents have no central heating. These are important factors determining health outcomes.
In 1998 there were far more extra deaths due to temperature drops in Britain than in the rest of Europe. In the UK, there was a 31 per cent. increase in deaths in the winter compared with the rest of the year, whereas the figure was only 14 per cent. in Sweden, 10 per cent. in Norway and 12 per cent. in Germany, according to House of Commons Library figures. Those are serious factors that have a real impact on health outcomes. Ending fuel poverty would mean fewer visits to GPs, fewer hospital admissions and fewer prescriptions.
The UK has the highest teenage pregnancy and birth rates in western Europe, with birth rates twice those in Germany, three times those in France and six times those in the Netherlands. The Government aim to halve those rates by 2010. That could be viewed as unambitious, but without proper co-ordination, and particularly the involvement of authorities on the ground at community level, I think that they will struggle even to meet those targets.
Evidence shows that some groups of young women are more likely than others to become pregnant: women from large families, those in lower socio-economic groups, those in families headed by lone parents and those with low levels of academic achievement. Resources, therefore, obviously need to be targeted and channelled effectively.
Some areas have rates of teenage pregnancies five times higher than those in other, more affluent areas. There is specifically a comparison between the Southwark area and the Chilterns. These figures are sometimes compiled by local authority ward, and there was a point in the mid-1990s when a local authority ward in my constituency—this may strike people as improbable and

cause raised eyebrows—had the highest teenage pregnancy rates in the country; higher than any inner-city area, for example. So the matter is not as simple as identifying certain big cities that need to have all the money ploughed into them, while other areas—typically rural areas or southern areas—may be assumed not to need it. That is a long way from the truth. The facts are rather more complex. We must look at the wider causes, and all the agencies dealing with these age groups will need to be involved.
The burden of sex education should not always fall on teachers, some of whom will not be best qualified to give advice on these subjects. The Secretary of State mentioned that he hoped very much to bring out his sexual health strategy within the next couple of months. I welcome that, although it must be said that it seems to have had an extraordinarily long gestation period. I hope very much that when it comes it will tackle the issues involved head on. [HON. MEMBERS: "It may be an elephant."] The gestation period might imply that, but I hope that it will be rather more nimble and fleet of foot and will not kowtow to those in certain elements of the tabloid media who seem able to whip themselves up into a state of frenzy about the very things that are most needed to tackle some of these complex issues. Those countries that take a more progressive approach to these matters seem to have the best outcomes. I hope very much, therefore, that the target audience will not be the editorial writers on some of the newspapers to which I have referred.

Dr. Harris: Is it not surprising that the Conservative party is whipping against moves toward greater access to emergency contraception, given the evidence from other countries where children, young people and teenagers are not having any less sex than they are, I think prematurely, in this country? That evidence shows that better access to such contraception decreases the amount of teenage pregnancy, teenage abortion—which I know particularly worries the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), as it worries all of us—and teenage births.

Mr. Harvey: My hon. Friend makes a series of very good points. My advice to him is never to be surprised by anything that the Conservative Whips do.
According to the Public Health Laboratory Service, there was a record number of new HIV diagnoses in heterosexual females in 1999. That is cause for serious alarm. The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) made some pertinent points about the increasing incidence of sexually transmitted diseases over the past five years. Perhaps it is in no small all part due to the fact that, after the worries about AIDS which broke out in the 1980s and carried through into the early 1990s, there has probably been far less observance of safe sexual practices in recent years than there was before that. I think that that is in no small part due to the general perception in society and perhaps in the media that, because the AIDS epidemic has not reached the sort of numbers that were originally predicted, the whole problem has somehow or other been beaten. It certainly has not. If the growing incidence of these very serious conditions is an indication that people have become more relaxed about them, they are wrong to do so, and this lack of caution has potentially dangerous consequences. It must be a matter of concern to all of us that there are an estimated 30,000 HIV infections in the UK, with a third of them undiagnosed.
The tobacco advertising ban, which started its way through the House on Monday, and some of the commitments the Government have made in their NHS plan, are welcome signs that the Government are taking the public health agenda seriously, We gladly support them. But there is still a long way to go to put right some of the UK's real problems. That is why we should like to see a Minister of public health not in the Department of Health, but in the Cabinet Office, bringing together relevant policies across all Government Departments. Putting the important questions of public health at the very heart of Government is the surest way to making the further improvements that all of us in the House, of whatever colour, want to see.

Mr. Stephen Hesford: I shall be shorter than I might have been, in the light of the way in which the Opposition have staged their debate. As the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) leaves the Chamber, I should like to draw attention to the motion. I am puzzled; it is worded in a weasel way. What is the purpose behind it? One might have expected a full-frontal attack on the use of MMR vaccines. The hon. Member for Woodspring did not do that, for which I am sure the House is grateful. I will say more about that in a moment.
Is it simply coincidence that we are having this debate when there is what I call the "Daily Mail tendency" debate in the press on MMR? Conservative Members do not have the courage of their convictions to join in that debate. They want to sail close to the debate for the sake of cheap publicity, but they will not come out with it.

Mr. Philip Hammond: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that part of the duty of the Opposition is to articulate in this place—the proper forum for debate—in a measured way issues that are of grave concern and are receiving a substantial airing in the media?

Mr. Hesford: The hon. Gentleman is clearly upset at what I say. I do not retract anything of it. Perhaps he could deal with my point about coincidence. Why are we having this debate now? I see that the hon. Gentleman is not about to rise.

Mr. Hammond: I am happy to rise, and the hon. Gentleman will hear more when I wind up. The debate is being held now because matters of great public concern are being aired in the media, and there may be misinformation about them. We believe that when issues of great public concern are being debated, it is right and proper that they should be aired in this place, in a measured way, and the Government should be given a proper opportunity to respond.

Mr. Hesford: So would it be wrong for us to have in mind a slight bandwagon tendency?

Mr. Peter Luff: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that the House should ignore matters that are of concern to the public and deal with issues that are not of concern to them?

Mr. Hesford: I have to say—[Interruption.] Conservative Members do not want to hear the answer;

they want to speak among themselves. [Interruption.] What Conservative Members wish to debate is a matter for them. I am simply seeking to understand why they want to debate this now.
I should like to touch on what I learned from the meeting that the all-party group on primary care and public health held on the important issue of MMR. As I said in my earlier intervention, an all-party approach was taken. My hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health came; we had an excellent debate, and heard from several eminent sources. The hon. Member for Woodspring asked for a cross-party approach on the issue, yet he failed to attend that meeting; he failed to adopt that approach. As a result of that meeting, there were several important press items affirming public confidence in the MMR vaccine.
Three issues arise from this question. The first is the safety of the immunisation programme. I know that there are concerns about that on the Opposition Benches. There are also the consequences of non-immunisation if people do not take part in the programme. The two cannot be dismissed—they have to run side by side. There is also the question of press treatment. I am afraid that in this country, certainly at the moment, the press are letting themselves down as the fourth estate in dealing with these issues. That makes the job of my hon. Friend the Minister that much more difficult in getting across a proposition that the scientific community agrees on. That is a barrier to proper debate and to putting across the information to my constituents and others.
At the meeting of the all-party group in July, we heard from Dr. Liz Miller, a very senior person at the Public Health Laboratory Service. She dealt with what I will call the rogue report—the report by Dr. Andrew Wakefield and his team, based at the Royal Free hospital. Rather curiously, one of the 37 studies, including that of the Committee on Safety of Medicines, was also based at the Royal Free and found that the adverse reports and the allegations were founded on data that were either not robust or had been disproved. Does the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) accept that the Wakefield report is nonsense, and that there is nothing in it?
Dr. Miller went on to discuss—[Interruption.] I see that the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser) thinks that the entire debate is a joke.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that I might best advise the hon. Gentleman to move on with his speech and to turn as deaf an ear to sedentary interventions as I am occasionally indulgent enough to do.

Mr. Hesford: Your indulgence is well known, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and appreciated from time to time. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will react in the same way.
Dr. Miller went on to discuss a paper in The Lancet in 1999 which reviewed the idea of the link between the MMR vaccine and autism. The main findings of the paper were as follows: there was no clustering of onsets shortly after the MMR vaccine, no difference in age at diagnosis between cases and the rest of the population, and no difference in MMR vaccine take-up between cases and the rest of the population. The paper also found that a rise in diagnosed autism cases pre-dated the use of the MMR vaccination, and that the rise continued while the vaccination uptake was constant—or, as we have heard, falling.
The Wakefield report was designed around invalid evidence. Dr. Miller stressed that the Wakefield report was entirely fallacious. Curiously, she concluded that a paper by Chadwick, et al, published in an august journal in 1998, decided that there was no link between MMR and alleged side effects. One of the authors was the same Dr. Wakefield.
Among the other contributors to the all-party meeting was Dr. Tony Jewel, a director of public health and a member of the UK Public Health Association. He made several telling points. If the public are to be re-engaged in accepting public vaccination programmes, the concept of no-fault compensation in vaccine damage cases should be sympathetically considered. Those involved in immunisation could have that at the back of their minds, if it were felt relevant to them as parents.
Dr. Jewel stressed also that the public must be reassured, with complete transparency in the communication of reports dealing with MMR research and use. I remind my hon. Friend the Minister of her comment on that occasion that the Government need to take vaccination safety seriously and must demonstrate that there is no cover-up in the dissemination of safety studies.
Another participant in that all-party meeting mentioned a worrying subset of the consequences of non-immunisation. I do not know how widespread this is, but Dr. Ruth Gallatley, Bradford's district immunisation co-ordinator, pointed out that some of the people withdrawing from immunisation programmes are ABC1s—members of the upper and middle classes.

Miss Kirkbride: Shameful.

Mr. Hesford: That was not a class-based point but, like one of Pavlov's dogs, the hon. Lady immediately shouts out. Dr. Gallatley was making the point of what she described as herd immunity—secured by a massive uptake in the immunisation programme; we have heard that MMR uptake used to be as high at 92.5 per cent. The figure is now below 90 per cent. Within herd immunity, certain people can hide behind sensible immunisation by a sufficient number of others, so that they can make so-called life style choices. That is worrying, because those are just the people—opinion formers—who should be sensible enough to stick with the programme and ensure that as many families as possible adhere to it.
I am not sure of the point of the motion or why we are debating it at this time. I am absolutely sure that, through my right hon. and hon. Friends, the Government are on top of the public health agenda. Far from being concerned about the Government failures that the motion suggests, the opposite is true. I commend my hon. Friend's work and look forward to working with her and others in future on this particular programme.

Miss Julie Kirkbride: I am grateful for catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I want to base my remarks on my views about the MMR vaccine. To that extent, I commend my hon. Friends on the Front Bench for bringing forward a motion that allows me to talk about my concerns relating to MMR and the public health debate on that issue.
Before I begin, I am a tempted to respond to the remarks by the Secretary of State, who made a typically gung-ho speech of the kind that he often gives to the House but which always contains some inaccuracies. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that all parties would like a reduction in the number of people who live in poverty and its elimination, which is a desirable outcome in terms of public health. However, the Government must accept that the gap between the rich and the poor is widening under Labour, just as it widened under the Conservative Government—for which they castigated us. I am not sure whether they are as successful in their aims as the rhetoric from the Treasury Bench would have us believe.
The Secretary of State pointed out that, back in the 1950s and 1960s, there were extremely poor outcomes for people in the lower social classes—much worse than today. One of the reasons for that is that many hundreds of thousands of people worked down the mines and that killed them; yet during the period of the changeover from coal to gas, it was the Labour party that was most vociferous in saying that the change should not take place. However, the change clearly had public health outcomes—sadly, because of the reasons that I outlined.
My concerns this evening are about the MMR vaccine. As you probably know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am promoting a private Member's Bill that I hope will receive its Second Reading on 9 February. It is about MMR—especially my desire that the Government should offer choice to parents so that their children can receive separate measles, mumps and rubella vaccinations. It is right and proper for the Government to offer choice; the Government were wrong to close the door on that choice when they came to office by failing to continue to licence the single vaccinations, which had been available, for those parents who—no matter what—will, for perfectly legitimate reasons, want a single vaccination programme. Parents should be allowed that choice.
The Government are reaping the consequences of their decision. One of the main reasons for the fall in the number of people being given the MMR vaccination and thus the reduction in inoculation throughout the general population is the fact that they are given only the MMR vaccination or nothing—they no longer have the option of a separate vaccination programme. That is a great mistake and one for which the Government will rue the day unless they decide—sooner rather than later—to accede to the demand for parental choice.

Dr. Harris: I am listening carefully to the hon. Lady's thoughtful remarks. If she saw evidence that the introduction by the NHS of more choice in that matter might lead to more deaths from measles or to more cases of mumps and congenital rubella disease, would she continue to say that the provision by the NHS of the choice of what appears to be a less effective treatment was a price worth paying?

Miss Kirkbride: I respect the hon. Gentleman in many ways—certainly as he is a medical professional—but I do not accept that there would be a price worth paying in the way that he puts it, nor do I accept that it is likely that he could show me evidence that would prove his point.
I think that the evidence that we have heard so far in the MMR debate is flawed—a belief shared by many parents and which causes them to fear the


MMR vaccination. The hon. Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hesford) asks why we are hodling the debate. It is obvious to most hon. Members—even to the hon. Gentleman's colleagues on the Government Back Benches—that we are holding the debate because immunisation rates are falling to the point where we are in serious danger of an epidemic of measles. That could have extremely serious consequences.
The way to boost immunisation rates so that children escape the possibility of catching measles is to offer parents the choice of separate vaccinations if they want them. That would lead to an increase in the number of immunisations. The MMR vaccination should also be available for those parents who are happy with it.
The issue is fundamentally one of parental choice. It is about the nanny state saying, "You will have this vaccination or you will have nothing at all". Parents are not prepared to be bullied or patronised in that way. They must be given choice. They take difficult decisions on behalf of their children and do so with the best interests of their children at heart. It is not good enough for Ministers to say that they do not like that and that they have their own reasons for thinking that such choice is unacceptable or that it may lead to dangers. I do not accept their premise that it is more dangerous to offer single vaccinations. On the balance of probability, the greatest danger at present is that children are not being vaccinated at all. To boost rates by giving some vaccinations, because parents can choose the single vaccine programme, clearly has major public health benefits.
I should like to put on record—the Minister would upbraid me if I did not do so—the fact that I am a big supporter of the public inoculation programme; it has been hugely successful and has transformed childhood mortality during the past 50 years—and increasingly so, as medical science has progressed. However, we should not blindly accept that every inoculation programme is fine and must not be questioned I. The volume of circumstantial evidence—I fully accept that it is circumstantial, but it is worrying nevertheless—that exists about MMR is a cause for concern. That is one reason why I am pressing ahead with my Bill.
I understand why the Government have pursued a public information programme, costing £3 million, but they would have been better off putting that money into proper research that would truly allay parents' fears about the MMR vaccine. They should not assume that if they keep telling parents, they will eventually be believed. I am afraid that the public do not respect politicians—or, indeed, medics—to the extent that they are prepared to accept on trust a view expressed by either of those professions.
The Secretary of State mentioned the BSE saga. I am afraid that we have to bear that in mind because when the BSE difficulties first arose, politicians and the chief medical officer said that there was no cause for concern and no reason to believe that BSE causes CJD. The truth is that we still do not know whether BSE causes CJD; we cannot prove it. We can say the same about the link between BSE and CJD as about the possible link between MMR and autism. There is no proof that they are linked, but some people believe that they are. Many people believe that BSE and CJD are linked, but some people believe that there is a link with MMR that causes autism in some rare cases.
Since I decided to proceed with the private Member's Bill, I have received a huge postbag from anguished parents who are very upset that they do not have a choice. Parents, health workers and teachers have told me the story of their children. They have said that the personality of their children changed following the MMR inoculation. I do not know whether those changes are linked to the MMR vaccination, but I am happy to accept that the visible symptoms of autism occur at roughly the same time as the MMR vaccination. The problem is that a growing body of parents are concerned because they believe that there is a link.
Research has been undertaken by maverick, but nevertheless respectable, professionals into the possible link between the MMR and autism, so we should ask questions. It is wrong that the Department of Health does not take the issue more seriously if it wants to strengthen public confidence in the MMR vaccination.

Dr. Harris: The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) clearly supported single vaccines on a pragmatic basis, which we can discuss, but he explicitly rejected the possibility of a link between MMR and autism on the evidence that he had seen. Is the hon. Lady saying that part of the motivation for her promoting single vaccines is that she fears that there may be a link and that she is not satisfied with the evidence that there is no link between MMR and autism or Crohn's disease?

Miss Kirkbride: I am not satisfied that there is no link. I believe that there are reasons to be concerned. I do not say that there is a link, but I cannot say in all honesty that there is not.
I am fortunate to have recently had a child of my own. I have to judge my reaction to public policy on the basis of the choices that I would make for my family. If I were to take my young son to have an MMR vaccination—fortunately, I do not have to do so for another year—I would do so with fear in my heart because of the queries that have been raised in my mind about the vaccine's safety, about which I should like further reassurance.
Although there is no proof to support the concern of parents, there is a logic to it. They believe that if three live vaccines are given to children who, at the age of just over one, have a very immature immune system—certainly in this world where cotton wool and disinfectant are everywhere—there is a risk that the triple attack on the immune system may cause proteins to leak out of the intestine and cause brain damage. Some experts believe that children are being damaged in that way and think that it is a different form of autism.
Hon. Members who disagree with those parents have to explain why autism is so much on the increase in this country. Perhaps it is being diagnosed more often, but it is still a subject on which all hon. Members must get many letters every week from parents of autistic children about them being statemented. Sadly, it is a common condition among the children of people who write to us, and we need an explanation.
The evidence that the Department of Health has produced to reassure parents like me has done it no favours. The recent Finnish study of 1.8 million children has been used to prove that there is no problem, but the difficulty is that it did not find a single case of autism in all those children. That is statistically inconceivable,


given the rise in the number of autistic cases. Not having found a case of autism worries me more than if it had told me that it had found a certain number of cases, because those would have been a statistical probability and have nothing to do with the MMR vaccination.
The study asked GPs to report their findings on the children after four to six weeks, but that was not long enough for the symptoms of autism to become apparent. The study was self-selecting and did not address the problem of autism. In addition, since the MMR vaccine was introduced in Finland, there has been a fourfold increase in cases of autism. The Department should give a more detailed response to those serious issues. The figures and information that it has provided so far have not been good enough.
The Secretary of State referred to Japan, on which he would not take my intervention, and the terrible case of 79 children who died from measles. The Department of Health has decided that that provides proof that single vaccines do not work. It has used the case to tell Conservative Members—and me in particular—that we are wicked because we advocate single vaccines and therefore a death sentence for our children. That is not true. Those children died because they were not vaccinated at all, which is rapidly becoming the case in this country. The huge crisis of public confidence in the MMR vaccine in Japan in the 1990s was caused—for want of a better description—by a rogue vaccine that would not have been licensed here either. It was rightly withdrawn, presumably on the advice of a body with equivalent responsibilities to the World Health Organisation.
As a result, the Japanese public lost confidence in vaccinations against childhood diseases and their children were not given them. Some of those children sadly died of measles. However, they did not die because they received single vaccinations but because they received no vaccinations. It is wrong for the Department to say that we cannot choose to have single vaccines because of what happened in Japan. The false and partial information that it provides makes people who strongly believe in choice, as I do, unhappy about the truthfulness of the Department in giving parents the full picture of the public health implications of the vaccine. That is why we should offer parents choice.
Clinics that administer single inoculations tend to leave a six-week gap between them. I accept that children are vulnerable to the diseases in that period, but that is nothing compared with the period of vulnerability if a child has no inoculations.
Again, I upbraid the Department of Health. A back door was open to single vaccinations for those people who felt strongly about the issue. A clinic in Edinburgh and a clinic in south London, called Direct Health 2000, probably met with the Department's disapproval because they have the temerity to be private, but if the Department really believes that it is better for children to have the MMR vaccination, there is no reason why people should not use their own money to have the inoculations done singly at their own expense. However, both clinics have been told that they can proceed with a single vaccination programme only for named children who have already received a vaccination.
It is wrong and stupid of the Department of Health to proceed on that basis. The clinics offered an option for the parents who felt strongly, but the option has been removed and the clinics have been given a stern reprimand about continuing to offer the choice. That has left an awful lot of parents disappointed that their one option of choice has been removed. The Department is foolish to be so bull-headed on the issue that it is not big enough to leave a bock door open for those parents who feel strongly.
I should also upbraid the hon. Member for Wirral, West. He seemed to suggest that the answer to increasing immunisation rates is to offer no-fault compensation for children who develop autism. That would make everyone have the vaccination. No parent will say, "That's all very well. I do not mind if my child develops autism, because I'll be compensated.' That is not how parents think about their children. While they have a fear that has not been allayed by proper research, no-fault compensation will not be the answer.
I suspect that I know why the Department does not want to reintroduce single vaccinations. Litigation is proceeding about the potential link with autism and compensation might have to be made available to those who have already been affected. Its lawyers are probably telling it not to give ground while the litigation is proceeding.
I also upbraid the hon. Member for Wirral, West for his old Labour stance that, because ABC1s do not want the vaccination, there is no cause to worry. They form a big part of the population and they are entitled to their opinion even if he does not think that he represents them. That is another reason why the alternatives should not be rejected out of hand.
The Secretary of State gave the impression that a speech like mine would create unnecessary fears and that it would be irresponsible to ask for single vaccines to be available to the general population. I reject that argument. It is irresponsible of the Department to continue, in its bull-headed fashion, to refuse to allow choice for parents. We do not live in the nanny state any more, however much Ministers would like to rewrite history. Parents are no longer prepared to accept on trust the advice of Ministers and some doctors. In a poll last week, health professionals also voiced their private concerns about MMR.
The public are not prepared to respond with complete trust; they will respond by making their own informed decisions. If we want our children to be protected and want to preclude the possibility of a measles outbreak in the United Kingdom, in which some children might die, we have to offer parents choice. I hope that this debate and perhaps my Bill—if it gets an airing on 9 February—will do something to persuade Ministers that they are being deliberately obdurate and that the time has now come for a change in Government policy.

Judy Mallaber: I decided to seek to speak in the debate when I realised that it was likely to focus on immunisation and vaccination, because I was so concerned that the current debate on MMR vaccination could affect public confidence in our immunisation and vaccination programmes generally. Given the fairly measured speeches by Opposition Members, I am surprised that the motion does not reflect that, but implies


that there is a general problem with the Government's public health policy on immunisation and communicable diseases. In terms of reducing confidence in the MMR vaccination it would have been helpful if the motion had not referred to the vaccination programme in general. That concerns me.
I was also surprised by the comments made by the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) about CJD and the public believing that full information had not been made available. One of the first people to visit a surgery I held just after being elected to Parliament was a woman on her way to visit her son who was dying in a local hospital of CJD. She would not believe now that full information was made available during the years covered by the Phillips inquiry. I hope that the House will soon have a debate on the Phillips report, because it is important that the full facts emerge and that the culture of secrecy that prevailed is wiped away.
The reason that I am so concerned that people should not have a problem with vaccination generally and that I am surprised at the terms of the Opposition's motion is rooted in one of the worst things that has happened to me since becoming a Member of Parliament. In summer 1999, while on holiday in Devon, I received a pager message from a member of staff in my constituency office mentioning the name of a small boy who had just died. The reason that message was so upsetting was not just that it told of the death of one particular boy, but that it confirmed that a village in my constituency had suffered a wholly inexplicable series of outbreaks of meningitis.
Several deaths and other cases of the disease occurred in three separate outbreaks despite every measure being taken that would normally be taken to deal with an epidemic. No one in the world could explain the outbreaks. I spent much of that summer on the phone with my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) who was in Yorkshire, and other senior Government advisers who were on holiday in other places, trying to persuade them to grant the request made by my local health authority to get the vaccine that was just being trialled and had not yet been licensed into that village, because there was no other way in which to solve the problem.
I was deeply grateful when that action was taken, and extremely relieved to hear of the latest results, which show what an amazing success that vaccination programme has been in tackling meningitis C. Far from talking about the failures of Government public health policy coupled with reference to immunisation programmes, we should recognise that the meningitis C programme and the flu programme have been among our major successes. We should applaud that, not suggest that all of the programmes are in danger. I am concerned about any lack of confidence in one programme spilling over into others.

Mr. Philip Hammond: Will the hon. Lady acknowledge that, when opening the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) specifically said that the motion was worded as it was so that he could make it clear that he was not suggesting that the Government public health policy was failing as a whole, but that there were certain failures that needed to be addressed?

Judy Mallaber: I said that it was the fairly measured comments made by Opposition Members that caused my

surprise that the motion did not explicitly recognise that attitude. Someone outside reading the motion would not have taken that point. I explicitly acknowledged that Opposition Members' speeches had been fairly measured.
It is important that we applaud the successes of the programme. Before coming into the Chamber, I spoke to the southern Derbyshire consultant in communicable diseases. He told me of his fear that, once a specific illness had almost been eradicated, the public would not be so keen to get their vaccinations, leading to a danger that deaths would occur, whereupon the public would flood back, banging on the door, desperate to be part of the immunisation programme. My area and others have witnessed remarkable successes in terms of the incidence of and the number of deaths resulting from meningitis. As other speakers have said, we cannot be complacent. Even with the meningitis C programme, a number of people have still not been vaccinated. In the past year, cases of meningitis C in my area have arisen only among groups that have not yet reached the vaccination stage. There are still some who have not been treated under the programme.
The trauma, despair and terror of a village and an area that is imbued by such a disease are horrendous; there is hysteria, upset and anxiety. As was pointed out, we still need to find a vaccination for meningitis B. Parents and families must be on their guard, and it is important for that message to keep going out.
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health for the quick response that she gave when I informed her of local fears that the Public Health Laboratory Service would charge for the polymerase chain reaction—or PCR—test, which has been important in identifying what is going on in relation to meningitis. The test has been one of our major successes in public health policy.
My neighbouring Member of Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman), was influential in setting the terms of the debate about the flu vaccine. She initiated a debate on the matter last year in the House and was one of those who argued for lowering the age at which free inoculations can be given. The response given to the vaccination programmes by health authorities and all those involved has been remarkable.
I want briefly to mention broader public health issues. In my area and elsewhere, a number of imaginative initiatives are ensuring substantial success on the broader public health agenda, in direct contradiction to the terms of the motion. That success has occurred not only because we are putting massive extra resources into the health service—it is hard to see how the Opposition can square their incredible policies of tax cuts and maintaining spending—but because of the new structures and the way in which they are working.
I should like to give a couple of examples. The House recently discussed smoking cessation. My area now has smoking advisers, who are available in general practitioners' surgeries. Doctors can pass patients on to such advisers, who will provide assistance and talk to them about what giving up smoking will mean. If people decide to go ahead with the programme, the advisers can give them free nicotine patches. The chief executive of my primary care group said that her mother had been smoking 60 cigarettes a day for the past 40 years. As she pointed out, if she can give up because of the counselling programmes, anybody can.
We have also managed to reduce waiting times for GPs by introducing another initiative under which counsellors work in their surgeries. When people go to a doctor with mental health problems, whether they have been caused by bereavement or specific problems in their lives, they can be referred immediately to counselling services within the surgery. Such provision is now available throughout Amber Valley. It is reducing waiting times and dealing with the difficulties that arise when GPs do not have time to get to the bottom of what is happening to the patients who present themselves in their surgeries.
There are a number of other imaginative new initiatives, such as the use of physio-triage within GPs' surgeries. The range of initiatives that have been introduced are making a genuine and important impact on public health. That is down to the new structures that are in place, which are enabling us to spread best practice and to make resources available in GPs' surgeries while also linking them into services in local community hospitals and acute hospitals.
My Conservative opponent in the forthcoming election has just been reported in the local paper as saying that she will conduct a survey of all the local health service failures and that she will pass on the results to the hon. Member for Woodspring. I hope that she will leaflet Ripley market, as I have done recently. I was astounded to meet two people in one hour who had just left Glenfield hospital. They were extremely bright after triple heart bypass operations.
When I mentioned the incident to the chief executive of my primary care group, she assured me that it had not been deliberate and that she had not planted the people there simply because she knew that I was leafleting. The group had decided to set up a major programme to deal with triple heart bypasses. I do not know whether it has a conveyor belt programme, but we are starting to make an impact. We need new structures as well as resources.
We have had major successes in public health. They have helped people who suffered unbelievable trauma in my constituency. I am grateful for the support and help of Ministers in dealing with some of those difficulties.

Mr. Peter Luff: I point out to the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber), who spoke in generally measured tones, that I could reveal a different story about coronary care in Worcestershire and the west midlands. However, that is not the subject of the debate.
The debate is important and has been measured. I welcome that. It was intended to be about issues of real anxiety to people outside the House. Those issues deserve to be addressed seriously. I was genuinely puzzled by the comments of the hon. Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hesford), who questioned the point of the debate. He spent much of the early part of his speech doing that rhetorically. He should realise that this place exists to address the concerns of people outside it and that it is not irresponsible but responsible to deal with them. Were the hon. Gentleman in his place, I would ask him what was the point of Parliament if not to tackle such anxieties.
I was encouraged by the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Amber Valley. She began to draw us towards the two important issues that underlie the debate. How

does society and Parliament debate risk? How do we deal with anxiety about risk? Those questions are relevant not only to health but to many aspects of public policy. For example, they apply to transport policy. Despite the tragic incidents on the railways, it remains safer to travel by train than by car. The shift from trains to cars increases the risk to which people are exposed. However, people feel that they are in control of a car and not of a train. They are making a mistake because they are at the mercy of other drivers, but they believe that they are safer.
On MMR, people want to take control and make decisions about vaccinations for their children. If a child contracts a disease, the parents will not blame themselves. However, if they believe—rightly or wrongly—that their action in getting the child immunised has led to autism or some other condition, they will blame themselves. That is a crucial difference.
There has been a series of health scares in our nation. They have often been unfounded, but they have led to declining respect for professionals and politicians who advise on health. We should be genuinely worried about that. I therefore emphasise to the hon. Member for Wirral, West, who is now in his place, that it is important to conduct a measured debate on the subject.
We should also be frank about our lack of knowledge of diseases. I am inclined to believe that we have the necessary knowledge to reassure people about MMR. However, I am glad that my children are old enough for me not to worry about making the decision. We do not have such knowledge about other matters.
When I was Chairman of the Select Committee on Agriculture, we spent a long time considering the link between tuberculosis in badgers and in cattle. We have no idea what the link is. The science is unclear and almost non-existent. We may believe that we know through anecdotal evidence, but we do not. That is often the problem in public health matters. Bovine tuberculosis is not irrelevant to the debate because there is increasing evidence of farming families contracting the bovine form of the disease. That seems to be related to their exposure to cattle, and is a matter of considerable anxiety.
We must grapple with the reality that we do not know how to manage risk and that sometimes we cannot reassure people because we do not have absolute knowledge.
MMR has been the focus of the debate, and I, too, will focus on it. The World Health. Organisation recommends an immunisation rate of 95 per cent. to avoid the spread of a new epidemic in the population. Our immunisation rate for the three diseases controlled by MMR is only 88 per cent., and in some parts of the country the rate is only 75 per cent. We are therefore at genuine risk of epidemics of the three diseases involved.
I hope that the Minister and the Secretary of State will ask themselves again where the real balance of risk lies. I know that this is a difficult and controversial area, but I have to say that Governments are no longer respected by people out there: they are no longer trusted to give secure and safe advice on public health policy.
The Secretary of State said clearly at the Dispatch Box that MMR was the best way of dealing with the problem, but even if the Government are entirely right I do not think that he will reassure people. Many will still be worried and will opt for no vaccination at all. That could have serious consequences, as we seem to see already


from the current statistics. I do not say this in a partisan way, but the Minister cannot duck it: immunisation rates have declined over the past few years, having reached about 92 per cent. in 1996–97.
I hope that the Secretary of State and his ministerial colleagues will realise that in public health policy it is sometimes necessary to choose the least worse option. I recommend a twin-track approach. There should be reassurance—I welcome the reassurance that the Government are trying to give about MMR—but parents who are not reassured should be offered the alternative of treatment on a single-vaccine basis. I realise that that would involve problems in doctors surgeries and a greatly increased work load. It is not an easy solution, and it is not without its costing problems. It should, however, result in an increase in overall immunisation rates.
Some children will be exposed to measles, mumps and rubella for longer than is necessary, which is bad: I do not rejoice in it at all. It is possible, however, that we shall manage to raise the overall immunisation rate to the critical 95 per cent. level.
This has been a good-natured debate, which has approached the issues seriously. However, I ask the Government to consider whether what the official Opposition are saying, in a non-partisan fashion, may represent the best way of avoiding the spread of dreadful diseases whose effect is often underplayed now that we have lost our experience of them.

Mr. John Heppell: I hope that my tones are not quite so measured—I cannot say that I am prepared to sit here and take lessons from the Tory party about any health issues.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hesford), I asked myself why the motion had been tabled. My first thought was that there is a bandwagon, and that Tories cannot not resist jumping on to every bandwagon that comes along.
My impression was strengthened by the comments of the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox). If this is not a bandwagon, it is certainly sensational. Somehow, he developed a selective memory. He told us about his letter. I was quite amused by it—it she wed the Opposition spokesman supporting the Government and deploring the scaremongering about MMR. Then, he was unequivocally happy to back the Government in their fight against that scaremongering. However, the hon. Gentleman suddenly forgot about that and, a year later, qualified what he had said. If that is not jumping on a bandwagon, I do not know what is. [Interruption.] If I am wrong, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) will be able to tell us that the Conservatives are backing the Government's campaign to ensure that as many children as possible are given the MMR vaccine. The Secretary of State made it clear that not doing so would put children's lives at risk, and that it would be irresponsible to act otherwise.
I then asked myself why people should concentrate on MMR. Part of the reason is sensationalism. I noted headlines about not just MMR but CJD, sexually transmitted diseases, asylum seekers—anything that feeds prejudice. I am not prepared to enter into a mealy-mouthed debate; I will say my piece, and not mince

words. It is bizarre to have the Tories lecturing us about anything. They have all developed a selective memory; they seem to have forgotten those 18 years.
There are lots of problems and challenges in the health service and lots of things that we have to put right. Cancer kills 127,000 people a year in this country. That is a matter of public health that has not been mentioned in the debate. Heart disease and strokes kill 214,000 people a year; accidents kill 10,000 people a year; and 4,500 people die by committing suicide each year. All those are public health matters that have not been mentioned. One of the reasons for the Conservatives concentrating on a very narrow subject is that they do not want to debate the big picture because it paints them in a bad light.

Mr. Hammond: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but the reason for focusing on a narrow area is that there is a large degree of consensus on these matters. When my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Mr. Fox) opened the debate, he made it clear that he wanted to focus on the issues on which there is a large degree of consensus across the House.

Mr. Heppell: It is only fair that the electorate should know what we agree on. If, at the end of the debate, Conservative Members want to tell the House that they agree with the Government on this issue, fine. However, it is also worth while pointing out the matters on which they do not agree with us. Okay, there are problems, and they need to be tackled. The Conservatives have conveniently forgotten that they did not tackle those problems for 18 years, and that they also created others. The reason why the Conservatives will never have the same commitment to the national health service and to public health as the Government is simple: we support the national health service in practice, but we also support it in principle. The Tories do not. That is a fact.
I was born in 1948—the same year that the national health service was created. We have something else in common: we are both products of the Labour party. The Labour party created the NHS against Tory opposition. The Tories did not oppose only the detail, the mechanics, the structure and the cost of the national health service; they opposed it in principle. They were ideologically opposed to the national health service, and if we scratch a Tory nowadays we find that they still are. That is why they starved the NHS of the resources needed for it to thrive and grow during those 18 years.
The average real-terms growth in the NHS during the Tories 18 years was 3 per cent. We have now doubled that and are putting in 6 per cent. That is 6 per cent. not just for one year, but for three years. By 2004, the national health service will have received three such increases, which is an unprecedented investment by the Government.
Hon. Members do not have to take my word for that. You may have thought, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I was reading a newspaper earlier; in fact, I was looking at a document published by my local health authority. It is worth referring to it to illustrate the difference between the Conservatives and the Labour Government, in terms of the resources that have been put into the national health service. Under the headline "Making a difference this winter", it describes the extra money that has been put in to get the service through the winter crisis. It states:
Making a difference—the NHS … is changing for the better.


It is right. The NHS is changing for the better.
The document goes on to describe the new ear, nose and throat centre at Queen's medical centre, and the £6.2 million state-of-the-art accident and emergency department being built there. No wonder Prince Charles always goes to Queen's medical centre when he falls off his horse.
The document goes on to describe gearing up for the winter, social care, the boost in critical care funding, NHS Direct and the extra money put in for the flu vaccine. I could go on and on. There are other things that the document does not mention—for example, the new scanner at Queen's medical centre or the new treatment for cancer at City hospital. All those improvements have happened in the short time that we have had a Labour Government. The people of this country were deprived of such improvements under the previous Government.
The debate was deliberately narrowed for two reasons: to grab headlines and to ensure that the broader picture was not discussed. The Tories have a record on public health that none of them can be proud of. Our record is not perfect, but we have made a start and we are going to get there. We are going to turn the NHS into not just what it was before the 18 years of Tory rule, but what it was when it was founded—the envy of the world.

Mr. Philip Hammond: I wrote a note to myself saying that the tone of this brief debate was by and large measured and constructive, but that was before the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) made his contribution.
My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) set the tone at the outset, and that tone was reciprocated—initially, at least—by the Secretary of State, who gave a measured response. Rather later in his speech, he moved off the subject that my hon. Friend had addressed and read out a section from his draft election manifesto. We have lots of opportunities to discuss issues on which there is scope for confrontation across the House, but tonight's debate represented an attempt to hold a constructive exchange on issues on which there is a good deal of consensus.
The hon. Members for Wirral, West (Mr. Hesford) and for Nottingham, East asked why we chose to hold the debate. I make no apology for reiterating that one of the Opposition's jobs is to raise issues that cause public concern or consternation so that they can be debated and responded to in the House. Governments of any colour may not always like that because it implies a measure of accountability, but it is no use Labour Members dismissing as scaremongering any Opposition attempt to use the proper forum to debate issues that are clearly of great public concern and are receiving an airing in the media, perhaps accompanied by misinformation. This is the proper place to hold a measured debate, to raise the issues and to allow the Government to respond to them.
I say to those hon. Members who raised such points that today's debate has no single immediate cause. We are responding to a growing sense of unease in the country that infectious diseases, which we thought had been consigned to history, are once again posing a threat and

that the response to the threat, and the public's perception of it, is inadequate. The price that we pay for maintaining the upper hand in the battle against infectious and contagious diseases is eternal vigilance. We question not the Government's commitment to maintaining that fight, but their tactics for delivery and whether they have perhaps allowed themselves to be distracted from that most fundamental of Government health responsibilities.
There is a serious debate to be had on a serious subject, and it is not all gloom. My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring acknowledged the apparent success of the meningitis C vaccination campaign—I am happy to do so as well—which appears to have nipped in the bud an extremely disturbing growth in reported cases. We are also happy to acknowledge that, after a rocky start, the flu vaccination campaign this winter has been a positive triumph of the will and effort of people working in the national health service over formidable logistical obstacles. That programme was largely delivered as a result of their commitment and hard work.
Those are the successes and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring said, they show that, where the commitment and the political will are present and when the Government work with the mood of public opinion, great things can be achieved. However, tempting as it is to dwell on the successes, our duty of vigilance requires us also to focus on some less successful aspects of public health policy and to articulate to the Government the frustrations and concerns that people up and down the country clearly feel. Nowhere is that public frustration and concern clearer than over the triple-dose MMR vaccine, which, inevitably, has been the centrepiece of the debate.

Mr. Hesford: In my speech, I asked for confirmation of whether Opposition Members reject the Wakefield report.

Mr. Hammond: I shall specifically come to the hon. Gentleman's question in a moment.
The problem, simply stated, is that concerns raised about the safety of the triple-dose vaccine have led immunisation rates to fall to a level that puts the population at risk of epidemics. My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring clearly asserted that the weight of scientific evidence supports the combination vaccine. I am pleased to state that again.
We may know best, but the challenge is to convince people in the real world. Since the first publication in 1998 of the Wakefield findings, the Government's policy has not wavered for a moment, and has denied any link between the MMR vaccine and autism. To support that, they have cited the large body of scientific evidence that points in favour of their position. I went to a briefing meeting in the Department of Health two and a half years ago—when the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities was Minister for Public Health—which was attended by concerned Members from both sides of the House. When the question of the single-dose vaccine was raised, the Minister and the chief medical officer, who were both present, firmly rejected the idea and made it clear that parents should not be offered an alternative for fear of weakening the arguments in favour of the combination vaccine.
I am sure that that was the right position for a Minister to take then. It may still be the right position for Ministers to take now. However, in his remarks, the Secretary of State



was ruling out for all time the possibility of needing to reconsider the matter if vaccination rates do not recover. When the Minister for Public Health winds up the debate, will she reassure the House that the Government will promote safety and arguments in favour of the combination vaccination, but that they will continue to take a pragmatic approach if vaccination rates do not recover?

Mr. Milburn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way on this issue. Would he just remind the House of precisely what happened on a previous occasion when, as he says, decision makers wavered in relation to a suspected problem with a vaccine—in this case, the whooping cough vaccine in the 1970s? If he does not remember, I can tell him that one publication cited a link between the vaccine for whooping cough and brain damage, which was subsequently proven to be wrong. In the meantime, whooping cough vaccine was not distributed in the way that it had been and the country had a whooping cough epidemic, which included many deaths. Would the hon. Gentleman remind the House of that and learn the lessons?

Mr. Hammond: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring has already made it clear-I hope that I am making it clear again—that we will support the Government in seeking to convince public opinion of the efficacy and safety of the combination vaccine. However, when the Minister winds up our debate, will she confirm that the Government's commitment to the combination vaccine is pragmatic, based on the fact that they believe that the population protection that is needed against measles, mumps and rubella will best be achieved by promoting the combination vaccine? There should not be a dogmatic commitment, based on an obscure idea that one solution alone must be promoted. I urge the Minister to reassure us that the Government will take a pragmatic approach to our debate this evening.

Fiona Mactaggart: What would the hon. Gentleman say to a constituent who came to my advice surgery last Friday and said that she was worried about the triple vaccine? She said that the single vaccine must be fine because a doctor from the Opposition said so. Why, she wanted to know, could she not get it on the NHS? That is what my constituent believes Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can say something to her, which I will show her in Hansard and which, perhaps, will reassure her.

Mr. Hammond: What I would say to the hon. Lady and to her constituent is what I have already said: the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence supports the Government's case, which we are happy to support. However, in his opening remarks, the Secretary of State himself acknowledged that public confidence in the weight of scientific argument and the way in which politicians present that argument is at an all-time low. There are all sorts of reasons for that. However, we live in the real world and have to deal with the situation that exists. The Government know that. Their challenge—we support them in meeting it—is to deal with real public perceptions, not with the perceptions that we would like them to have.

Dr. Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hammond: No; I shall not give way again. I should like the Minister to have plenty of time to reply to the debate.
I should like to ask the Minister a question. I have a letter from the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities, who wrote to me on the subject in September 1998, when she was Minister of State at the Department of Health. She said:
The UK Health Departments have been working on producing publicity material for parents and their medical advisers … The aim is to provide a factual briefing on the issues to enable parents to make an informed choice about the MMR vaccine in consultation with their health professional.
The Government seem to acknowledge that parents have to make an informed choice, and they are about to embark on a major advertising campaign to provide information to parents so that, as the Secretary of State said earlier, they can make an informed choice. However, what informed choice does the Minister want parents to make? Surely she does not want to open the door to parents choosing the option not to vaccinate their children. Will she confirm that it would be a disaster if parents were to receive the message that the choice that the Government are seeking to empower them to make could ever be not to vaccinate their children?

Dr. Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hammond: I shall not give way; I have only a moment left.
Today's debate has inevitably focused on the MMR issue, as it is very much in the public mind. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring also drew the House's attention to the TB situation and the explosion of TB cases. It is no longer just a third-world problem but a problem that affects us here. London has the highest incidence of TB of any city in Europe. The Secretary of State sought in his speech to address some of those issues.
I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us just what the Government are doing to ensure that we never again become vulnerable to a single-source supplier of vaccine, which for technical or other reasons can of course fail.
Will the Minister also tell the House what the Department is doing to assess the port of entry screening programme which is a vital part of the battle to combat TB in the United Kingdom?
I want to ensure that the Minster has plenty of time to respond to the comments made today by hon. Members on both sides of the House. We have raised the issue of failures in public health policy, particularly in relation to immunisation and communicable diseases, because that issue greatly concerns the public and all hon. Members. It is necessary that Ministers have an opportunity to address such issues in this place, which is the proper forum to consider them.
It is impossible to switch on a television without becoming aware of the extent and depth of public concern and confusion about some health issues, especially MMR. I repeat that hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that the overwhelming weight of evidence supports the contention that MMR is a safe and efficacious response. However, concern will turn to anger if the public do not perceive that the Government are sensitive


to their concern and are dealing with it. It is the job of the Opposition to hold the Government to account for their performance in that most fundamental role of the modern state.
Since Edwin Chadwick and the great Public Health Acts of the 1840s and 1850s—long before the welfare state or the concept of a health service that is universal and free at the point of use—it has been established that a core, central role of Government is to secure the public health by preventing the spread of communicable disease.
As technology and sanitation have developed, we have come to take for granted the gradual elimination of disease after disease that was once a killer but has become little more than a historical curiosity—so much so, that we may sometimes forget the Government's vital public health role. It may be the unglamorous end of the Health Department's work, but it is vital that Governments are not distracted from that vital work by higher-profile health policy matters.
Nothing is as fundamental to the health and welfare of the British people as a sound public health policy, effectively implemented, to ensure the continued protection of the population from the killer diseases that we have, mercifully, all but forgotten, and from the newer scourges that threaten.
Tonight's debate is a gentle wake-up call, a reminder that Government must focus on this most fundamental role of the state, and a reassurance to them that, if they go about that business with a sound policy, pragmatically implemented and sensitive to public opinion, we will support them in it.

The Minister for Public Health (Yvette Cooper): I am grateful for the opportunity to reply to this debate on an extremely serious subject—ultimately, lives are at stake. The tone of the debate has been largely measured, but I am not so convinced that the content has been as responsible as the tone would suggest.
The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) asked several questions about communicable diseases, many of which were fully answered earlier by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) welcomed many of the public health measures in the NHS plan. I welcome his comments, although he rightly pointed out how far we still have to go. The hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) voiced her concerns about MMR, while my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hesford) set out strong evidence offered by scientific bodies in support of the vaccine.
My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) talked poignantly about the impact of meningitis C vaccine in her constituency. The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) returned to MMR and referred to the problems of risk and the precautionary principle. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) argued clearly that the big problems come from poverty, ill health and the big killers: cancer and heart disease.
The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) referred to TB, to the BCG vaccination and to the risks posed by monopoly suppliers. We are certainly concerned about that, although there is not always an easy way of getting round the problem.
My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley described the meningitis C campaign. It is a wonderful story for public health and an immense tribute to the NHS that the programme was implemented so quickly. Early results show that it prevented 500 cases of and 50 deaths from meningitis C in the past year. That is 50 tots and teenagers who are still arguing with their parents and taking their lives for granted because of the vaccine.
MMR has been debated in great detail. Many parents of young children will feel confused and worried following the reports that they have read in the newspapers these past few weeks. Any parent of young children will know quite how much we worry about whether we are doing the best by our sons and daughters. That is why the debate about MMR is so deadly serious. We need to take parents' concerns on MMR seriously. We must take seriously every question raised about any drug or vaccine.
That is exactly why we have referred every single claim or allegation about the safety of the vaccine to committees of experts on both vaccination and the safety of medicines for them to examine in great detail. That is why we referred all the latest Dr. Wakefield allegations to them and why we will investigate any new allegation that is made.
We have gone to great lengths to publish every detail of the advice and to make it as widely available as possible, and sought the views of all the independent health professional bodies with an interest in the area. They have all told us very clearly that MMR remains the safest way of protecting children against deadly diseases. They have found no evidence of any link with autism, even though they have studied all the research—from Finland, Sweden, the north Thames region and Dr. Wakefield. They found that children would be at risk of infection for longer with the single vaccines and that, ultimately, their lives would be at stake.
Those experts have no interest in denying the risk or in putting children's health at risk. They spend their lives trying to improve children's health. We have asked them many times to advise us on this subject, and their advice every time has been the same. We need to take that advice very seriously. Their recommendation on the question of single jabs is clear. They say that to introduce a programme of single jabs on the NHS would be less safe than MMR, and would put children's lives at risk.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to the case of whooping cough vaccine in the 1970s. The then Government introduced to the NHS a less safe alternative in response to scares about the pertussis component of the DTP vaccine, even though those scares proved unfounded. When the alternative was offered on the NHS—and effectively endorsed by it—everyone opted for it. They felt that, because the NHS was endorsing the alternative, it therefore must be the safest option for their children. The result was that there were 200,000 cases of whooping cough, and 100 deaths.
Exact comparison can never be made between decisions taken on previous occasions with regard to different vaccines. Every case is different and must be considered on its merits, taking into consideration the evidence from the experts. However, we have an obligation to listen to the advice that we are given as well as to the anxieties expressed by parents.
If we ignored that expert advice and, on the basis of no evidence, endorsed on the NHS an alternative that the medical experts say would risk children's lives, we would be betraying parents and children. As a parent, I would feel betrayed by the NHS and by the health professionals that let such a thing happen.

Miss Kirkbride: I respect what the Minister has said and accept her point about the NHS, although I should prefer her to change the way in which she approaches the problem. However, why do not the Government allow the private clinics that offer the separate vaccines to proceed? Why have the Government clamped down on those clinics' ability to make the licensed vaccines available?

Yvette Cooper: There is no clampdown. Under the Medicines Acts, the Medicines Control Agency has an obligation to ensure that unlicensed products are supplied according to very strict rules, because there is a serious concern to prevent unlicensed products that may be unsafe from being improperly supplied. The single vaccines available for use in the UK are unlicensed. They have not been through the MCA's safety checks.
I welcome the more measured tone displayed today by the hon. Members for Woodspring and for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), but the media have not received their comments in the same way—and they know it. My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) gave the very clear example of a person who came to her constituency surgery and said that the single jabs must be better "because the man on the telly—Liam Fox—said so, and he's a doctor, isn't he?"
I have listened to what Conservative Members have said in the debate. They have been carefully dancing around the issue, but they know the medical evidence well. They also know well how their remarks are being interpreted, in the media and by parents. I caution them over their apparent promotion of s single jabs as a safer alternative, because they know that that is how their remarks are being interpreted.

Judy Mallaber: Did my hon. Friend the Minister note that, when one newspaper tried to raise a scare about the meningitis C programme, no other newspaper picked it up? That was because no one jumped on the bandwagon, with the result that the story was killed. However, the scare this time is being recycled time and time again. Does she agree that that must be because comments by other people are being used to support some of those fears?

Yvette Cooper: I acknowledge my hon. Friend's remarks. We all know that as parents we are very susceptible to worrying dreadfully about whether or not we are doing the best for our children. That is exactly why as politicians we have a responsibility not to manipulate parents' fears and to make sure that we give them absolutely accurate information—as much information as possible, but also access to the proper medical advice.

Mr. Hammond: I should like to give the hon. Lady, as a token of my commitment to the triple vaccine, the information that all three of my children aged under seven

have been vaccinated with the triple-dose vaccine. That is the best commitment I can give the hon. Lady in public and on record.

Yvette Cooper: I am glad to hear that endorsement of the safety of the MMR vaccine. It clearly accords with what the medical experts and advisers are telling us.
All of us in the House have to be very careful about playing politics and trying to pronounce as politicians on the safety of medicines and on the safety of vaccinations. As many hon. Members have said, in this area as a result of previous health scares, and in particular the BSE issue, what politicians say is not necessarily taken seriously by the public, and certainly not by the media.
There are broader public health matters that I wish briefly to turn to, issues that many hon. Members have mentioned. Public health is about so much more than communicable disease. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) is absolutely right: the big killers in this country are cancer and heart disease, and the biggest public health issue is addressing the health inequalities that underlie the big killers.
The gap in life expectancy between rich and poor rose between the late 1970s and the mid-1990s, for men from 7.5 years to 9.5 years and for women from 5 years to 6.5 years. Those health inequalities have grown worse. That is a public health tragedy and outrage.
The hon. Member for Bromsgrove said that the gap was because the men all worked down the mines, and Labour should not have opposed closing the pits. I find it absolutely astonishing that the devastation of the coalfield community should be described as a positive public health measure. Does the hon. Lady have any idea of the impact on the health of entire communities suffering unemployment, poor and crumbling mining communities where depression and drug abuse are rife? What she said shows shocking ignorance about the public health problems that face this country.
This Government have set in place an entire programme to tackle all the dimensions of public health. The NHS plan and the White Paper on saving lives are to tackle the most deep-rooted causes of the problems. Perhaps the most important thing that we can do to improve public health is to meet our target to abolish child poverty. No other measure will do more to improve public health.
I should like to return to a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Hope) about the programme sure start. Sure start is perhaps the most important public health programme that we have. It will involve eventually spending £500 million a year on families with children under four in low-income areas, improving their access to health care, education and child care, and delivering what local parents want. My hon. Friend asked the Opposition whether they would match our spending on sure start, and they would not answer. They said that they would match our spending on health, but they have not said they will match our spending on sure start. On the biggest measure to tackle public health that we are introducing across this Government, for them not to be able to make a commitment to back sure start, providing health for families across the country, shows a pretty weak commitment to tackling public health.
The Government believe that at the beginning of the 21 st century it is morally wrong that our chances of a healthy life still depend on who we are, where we were born, what our parents do and how much they earn. Under the previous Government, health inequalities and child poverty rose. This Government are determined to bring health inequalities down and to tackle the fundamental, immoral divisions in our society. We will bring them down—a return to a Tory Government would push those health inequalities back up again. That would be a public health tragedy.
Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
The House divided: Ayes 135, Noes 317.

Division No. 86]
[9.59 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Hayes, John


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Heald, Oliver


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Baldry, Tony
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Bercow, John
Horam, John


Beresford, Sir Paul
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Blunt, Crispin
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Body, Sir Richard
Hunter, Andrew


Boswell, Tim
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Jenkin, Bernard


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Key, Robert


Brazier, Julian
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Browning, Mrs Angela
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Burns, Simon
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Butterfill, John
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Cash, William
Lansley, Andrew


Chope, Christopher
Leigh, Edward


Clappison, James
Letwin, Oliver


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Collins, Tim
Lidington, David


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Cran, James
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Curry, Rt Hon David
Loughton, Tim


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Luff, Peter


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Day, Stephen
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Duncan, Alan
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Duncan Smith, Iain
McLoughlin, Patrick


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Madel, Sir David


Evans, Nigel
Malins, Humfrey


Faber, David
Maples, John


Fabricant, Michael
Mates, Michael


Fallon, Michael
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Flight, Howard
May, Mrs Theresa


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Moss, Malcolm


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Norman, Archie


Fox, Dr Liam
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Fraser, Christopher
Ottaway, Richard


Gale, Roger
Paice, James


Garnier, Edward
Pickles, Eric


Gibb, Nick
Prior, David


Gill, Christopher
Randall, John


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Robathan, Andrew


Green, Damian
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Greenway, John
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Grieve, Dominic
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Hague, Rt Hon William
Ruffley, David


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
St Aubyn, Nick


Hammond, Philip
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hawkins, Nick
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian





Shepherd, Richard
Tyrie, Andrew


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Viggers, Peter


Soames, Nicholas
Walter, Robert


Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Waterson, Nigel


Spicer, Sir Michael
Wells, Bowen


Spring, Richard
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Whittingdale, John


Streeter, Gary
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Swayne, Desmond
Willetts, David


Syms, Robert
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Yeo, Tim


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Taylor, Sir Teddy
Tellers for the Ayes:


Tredinnick, David
Mr. James Gray and


Trend, Michael
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.


NOES



Abbott, Ms Diane
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Clelland, David


Ainger, Nick
Clwyd, Ann


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Coaker, Vernon


Allan, Richard
Coffey, Ms Ann


Allen, Graham
Cohen, Harry


Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)
Coleman, Iain



Colman, Tony


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Connarty, Michael


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)



Ashton, Joe
Cooper, Yvette


Atherton, Ms Candy
Corbett, Robin


Atkins, Charlotte
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bailey, Adrian
Cousins, Jim


Banks, Tony
Crausby, David


Barron, Kevin
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Bayley, Hugh
Cummings, John


Beard, Nigel
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret



Begg, Miss Anne
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Darvill, Keith


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrougt)
Davidson, Ian


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)



Bennett, Andrew F
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Benton, Joe
Dawson, Hilton


Bermingham, Gerald
Dean, Mrs Janet


Berry, Roger
Denham, John


Blackman, Liz
Dobbin, Jim


Blears, Ms Hazel
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Blizzard, Bob
Donohoe, Brian H


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Doran, Frank


Borrow, David
Dowd, Jim


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Drew, David


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Breed, Colin
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Edwards, Huw


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Efford, Clive


Browne, Desmond
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Buck, Ms Karen
Ennis, Jeff


Burden, Richard
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Burstow, Paul
Fearn, Ronnie


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Fisher, Mark


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna



Flint, Caroline


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Follett, Barbara


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Foster, Rt Hon Derek



Caplin, Ivor
Foster, Don (Bath)


Casale, Roger
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Caton, Martin
Foulkes, George


Cawsey, Ian
Gapes, Mike


Chaytor, David
Gardiner, Barry


Chidgey, David
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Clapham, Michael
George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Gerrard, Neil






Gibson, Dr Ian
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Gidley, Sandra
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


Gilroy, Mrs Linda



Godman, Dr Norman A
Macdonald, Calum


Godsiff, Roger
McDonnell, John


Goggins, Paul
McIsaac, Shona


Golding, Mrs Llin
McNulty, Tony


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
MacShane, Denis


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mactaggart, Fiona


Grocott, Bruce
McWalter, Tony


Grogan, John
McWilliam, John


Hain, Peter
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Mallaber, Judy


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hanson, David
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Harris, Dr Evan
Martlew, Eric


Harvey, Nick
Maxton, John


Healey, John
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael



Merron, Gillian


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hendrick, Mark
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Hepburn, Stephen
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan



Heppell, John
Miller, Andrew


Hesford, Stephen
Mitchell, Austin


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hill, Keith
Moore, Michael


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hood, Jimmy
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Morley, Elliot


Hope, Phil
Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie


Hopkins, Kelvin
Mudie, George


Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)
Mullin, Chris


Howells, Dr Kim
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Humble, Mrs Joan
Norris, Dan


Hutton, John
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Iddon, Dr Brian
Olner, Bill


Illsley, Eric
Öpik, Lembit


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Pearson, Ian


Jamieson, David
Pickthall, Colin



Jenkins, Brian
Pike, Peter L


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Pond, Chris


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Pope, Greg



Powell, Sir Raymond


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Primarolo, Dawn


Joyce, Eric
Prosser, Gwyn


Keeble, Ms Sally
Purchase, Ken


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Quinn, Lawrie


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Raynsford, Nick


Kemp, Fraser
Rendel, David


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)


Khabra, Piara S



Kidney, David
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Rogers, Allan


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Kirkwood, Archy
Rooney, Terry


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lammy, David
Rowlands, Ted


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Ruane, Chris


Laxton, Bob
Ruddock, Joan


Leslie, Christopher
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Levitt, Tom
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)



Ryan, Ms Joan


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Salter, Martin


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Sanders, Adrian


Linton, Martin
Sarwar, Mohammad


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Savidge, Malcolm



Lock, David
Sawford, Phil


Love, Andrew
Sedgemore, Brian


McAvoy, Thomas
Shaw, Jonathan





Sheerman, Barry
Timms, Stephen


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Todd, Mark


Short, Rt Hon Clare
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Trickett, Jon


Skinner, Dennis
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Tyler, Paul


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Tynan, Bill


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Walley, Ms Joan


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Watts, David


Soley, Clive
Webb, Steve


Southworth, Ms Helen
White, Brian


Spellar, John
Wicks, Malcolm


Squire, Ms Rachel
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Starkey, Dr Phyllis



Steinberg, Gerry
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Willis, Phil



Wills, Michael


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Wilson, Brian


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Winnick, David


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Wood, Mike


Stunell, Andrew
Woolas, Phil


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Worthington, Tony


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)



Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Wyatt, Derek


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)



Temple-Morris, Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Mr. Don Touhig and


Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)
Mr. Clive Betts.

Question accordingly negatived.
Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—
The House divided: Ayes 315, Noes 133.

Division No. 87]
[10.16 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Boateng, Rt Hon Paul


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Borrow, David


Ainger, Nick
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Allan, Richard
Breed, Colin


Allen, Graham
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)



Browne, Desmond


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Buck, Ms Karen


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Burden, Richard


Ashton, Joe
Burstow, Paul


Atherton, Ms Candy
Byers, Rt Hon Stephen


Atkins, Charlotte
Caborn, Rt Hon Richard


Bailey, Adrian
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Banks, Tony
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)


Barron, Kevin



Bayley, Hugh
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Beard, Nigel
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Caplin, Ivor


Begg, Miss Anne
Casale, Roger


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Caton, Martin


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Cawsey, Ian


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Chaytor, David


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Chidgey, David


Bennett, Andrew F
Clapham, Michael


Benton, Joe
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Bermingham, Gerald
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Berry, Roger
Clelland, David


Blackman, Liz
Clwyd, Ann


Blears, Ms Hazel
Coaker, Vernon


Blizzard, Bob
Coffey, Ms Ann






Cohen, Harry
Hesford, Stephen


Coleman, Iain
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Colman, Tony
Hill, Keith


Connarty, Michael
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hood, Jimmy


Cooper, Yvette
Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Corbett, Robin
Hope, Phil


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hopkins, Kelvin


Cousins, Jim
Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)


Crausby, David
Howells, Dr Kim


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cummings, John

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)
Humble, Mrs Joan



Hutton, John


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Iddon, Dr Brian


Darvill, Keith
Illsley, Eric


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Davidson, Ian
Jamieson, David


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jenkins, Brian


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Dawson, Hilton
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Dean, Mrs Janet



Denham, John
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Dobbin, Jim
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Donohoe, Brian H
Joyce, Eric


Doran, Frank
Keeble, Ms Sally


Dowd, Jim
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Drew, David
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Kemp, Fraser


Edwards, Huw
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Efford, Clive
Khabra, Piara S


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Kidney, David


Ennis, Jeff
Kilfoyle, Peter


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Fearn, Ronnie
Kirkwood, Archy


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Fisher, Mark
Lammy, David


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna
Laxton, Bob


Flint, Caroline
Leslie, Christopher


Follett, Barbara
Levitt, Tom


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Linton, Martin


Foulkes, George
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Gapes, Mike
Lock, David


Gardiner, Barry
Love, Andrew


George, Andrew (St Ives)
McAvoy, Thomas


George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Gerrard, Neil
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


Gibson, Dr Ian



Gidley, Sandra
Macdonald, Calum


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McDonnell, John


Godman, Dr Norman A
McIsaac, Shona


Godsiff, Roger
McNulty, Tony


Goggins, Paul
MacShane, Denis


Golding, Mrs Llin
Mactaggart, Fiona


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
McWalter, Tony


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McWilliam, John


Grocott, Bruce
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Grogan, John
Mallaber, Judy


Hain, Peter
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)



Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Hanson, David
Martlew, Eric


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Maxton, John


Harris, Dr Evan
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Harvey, Nick
Merron, Gillian


Healey, John
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Hendrick, Mark
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Hepburn, Stephen
Miller, Andrew


Heppell, John
Mitchell, Austin





Moonie, Dr Lewis
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Moore, Michael
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Morley, Elliot
Soley, Clive


Mudie, George
Southworth, Ms Helen


Mullin, Chris
Spellar, John


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Squire, Ms Rachel


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Norris, Dan
Steinberg, Gerry


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Olner, Bill
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Öpik, Lembit
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Pearson, Ian
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Pickthall, Colin
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Pike, Peter L
Stunell, Andrew


Pond, Chris
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Pope, Greg
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Powell, Sir Raymond



Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Temple-Morris, Peter


Primarolo, Dawn
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Prosser, Gwyn
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Purchase, Ken
Timms, Stephen


Quinn, Lawrie
Todd, Mark


Raynsford, Nick
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Rendel, David
Trickett, Jon


Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)
Truswell, Paul



Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)



Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Rogers, Allan
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Tyler, Paul


Rooney, Terry
Tynan, Bill


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Walley, Ms Joan


Rowlands, Ted
Webb, Steve


Ruane, Chris
White, Brian


Ruddock, Joan
Wicks, Malcolm


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)



Ryan, Ms Joan
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Salter, Martin
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Sanders, Adrian
Willis, Phil


Sarwar, Mohammad
Wills, Michael


Savidge, Malcolm
Wilson, Brian


Sawford, Phil
Winnick, David


Sedgemore, Brian
Wood, Mike


Shaw, Jonathan
Woolas, Phil


Sheerman, Barry
Worthington, Tony


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Short, Rt Hon Clare
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Wyatt, Derek


Skinner, Dennis



Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Mr. Clive Betts and


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Mr. Don Touhig.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Chope, Christopher


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Clappison, James


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Collins, Tim


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Baldry, Tony
Cran, James


Bercow, John
Curry, Rt Hon David


Beresford, Sir Paul
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Blunt, Crispin
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)


Body, Sir Richard
Day, Stephen


Boswell, Tim
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Duncan, Alan


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Duncan Smith, Iain


Brazier, Julian
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Browning, Mrs Angela
Evans, Nigel


Burns, Simon
Faber, David


Butterfill, John
Fabricant, Michael


Cash, William
Fallon, Michael






Flight, Howard
Mates, Michael


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
May, Mrs Theresa


Fox, Dr Liam
Moss, Malcolm


Fraser, Christopher
Norman, Archie


Gale, Roger
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Garnier, Edward
Ottaway, Richard


Gibb, Nick
Paice, James


Gill, Christopher
Pickles, Eric


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Prior, David


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Randall, John


Green, Damian
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Greenway, John
Robathan, Andrew


Grieve, Dominic
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Hague, Rt Hon William
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Hammond, Philip
Ruffley, David


Hawkins, Nick
St Aubyn, Nick


Hayes, John
Sayeed, Jonathan


Heald, Oliver
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Soames, Nicholas


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Horam, John
Spicer, Sir Michael


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Spring, Richard


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Hunter, Andrew
Streeter, Gary


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Swayne, Desmond


Jenkin, Bernard
Syms, Robert



Tapsell, Sir Peter


Key, Robert
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Tredinnick, David


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Trend, Michael


Lansley, Andrew
Tyrie, Andrew


Leigh, Edward
Viggers, Peter


Letwin, Oliver
Walter, Robert


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Waterson, Nigel


Lidington, David
Wells, Bowen


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Whittingdale, John


Loughton, Tim
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Luff, Peter
Willetts, David


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Yeo, Tim


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


McLoughlin, Patrick



Madel, Sir David
Tellers for the Noes:


Malins, Humfrey
M r. James Gray and


Maples, John
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

Question accordingly agreed to.
MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House condemns the widening health inequalities between 1979 and 1997 and the failure of Conservative governments to acknowledge health inequality or address the growing health gap between rich and poor; and supports initiatives to improve public health and tackle health inequalities, including new vaccination programmes for influenza and Meningitis C, the allocation of an extra £450 million to improve cancer and coronary heart disease services in England, the extension of the breast screening programme to women aged between 65 and 70, the strategy to reduce teenage pregnancies, the largest-ever investment in smoking cessation services and the proposed ban on tobacco advertising and sponsorship.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the Prime Minister's announcement today about an inquiry into the events surrounding the resignation of the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), and the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury

(Mr. Lidington) about whether questions tabled subsequent or previous to that may be sub judice, would you, Mr. Speaker, give a ruling as to whether questions asked by Members about the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), relating to his conduct and any relation that he might have had with Hinduja brothers will come under the same rules as those relating to the inquiry and to the right hon. Member for Hartlepool?

Mr. Speaker: I have already given a ruling but, perhaps to clarify the situation, I would say that it is not the type of inquiry that would be covered by the sub judice rules. However, the contents of any ministerial reply have nothing to do with the Speaker.

Mr. Soames: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Does that mean that the Table Office will accept any parliamentary question relating to the conduct of the Minister of State. Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Leicester, East, in relation to that event?

Mr. Speaker: The Table Office will accept any question that is in order. If the hon. Gentleman is refused, I am sure that he will come back to me.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I understand it, the fact that an inquiry is taking place does not raise any procedural difficulty in respect of the tabling of questions. Will you confirm that that is correct?

Mr. Speaker: Absolutely no problem is raised as far as procedure is concerned.

NORTHERN IRELAND GRAND COMMITTEE

Motion made,
That—

1. The matter of human rights and equality in Northern Ireland, being a matter relating exclusively to Northern Ireland, be referred to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee;
2. The Committee shall meet at Westminster on Thursday 8th February at 2.30 p.m.; and
3. At that meeting—

(a) the Committee shall take questions for oral answer; and shall then consider the matter of human rights and equality in Northern Ireland, referred to it under paragraph (1) above;
(b) the Chairman shall interrupt proceedings at 5 p.m.; and
(c) at the conclusion of those proceedings a Motion for the adjournment of the Committee may be moved by a Minister of the Crown pursuant to Standing Order No. 116(5) (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings).—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Hon. Members: Object.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

SOCIAL SECURITY

That the draft Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating and National Insurance Funds Payments) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 30th November, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Mr. Speaker: I think the Ayes have it.

Hon. Members: No.
Division deferred till Wednesday 31 January, pursuant to Order [7 November 2000].

SITTINGS IN WESTMINSTER HALL

Motion made,
That, following the Order [20th November 2000], Mr. Nicholas Winterton, Mr. John McWilliam, Mr. Barry Jones and Frank Cook be appointed to act as additional Deputy Speakers at sittings in Westminster Hall during this Session.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Hon. Members: Object.

SELECT COMMITTEES (JOINT MEETINGS)

Motion made,
That, for the current Session of Parliament, Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended as follows:
Line 37, before the word 'European' insert the words 'Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.
Line 46, before the word 'European' insert the words 'Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.
Line 48, at the end insert the words:—
'(4A) notwithstanding paragraphs (2) and (4) above, where more than two committees or sub-committees appointed under this order meet concurrently in accordance with paragraph (4)(e) above, the quorum of each such committee or sub-committee shall be two.'—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Hon. Members: Object.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made,
That, at the sitting on Wednesday 31st January, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents), the Speaker shall—

(i) put the Question on the Motion in the name of Mr. Secretary Straw relating to Police Grant Reports (England and Wales) not later than Seven o'clock; and
(ii) put the Questions on the Motions in the name of Mr. Secretary Prescott relating to Local Government (Finance) not later than Ten o'clock. —[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Mobile Phone Masts

Motion made, and Ouestion proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr Robert Ainsworth.]

Mr. Paul Burstow: I am grateful—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is out of order that those who are leaving the Chamber should walk in front of the hon. Member who has the Floor.

Mr. Burstow: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am grateful to have the opportunity to raise an important matter in the House tonight. My interest in the subject of mobile phone masts stems first and foremost from cases drawn to my attention via my constituency mailbag. Last year, my local council, the London borough of Sutton, received 22 prior notification submissions from telecommunications companies. Although not all of them proved controversial locally, several have caused considerable concern among many of my constituents.
Most recently, residents of the Belmont area of my constituency were alarmed by a mast proposal that fell outside the borough boundary and within the Banstead and Reigate district council area. Although remote from residents in that council's area, the mast would have been close to residents in my constituency. As a consequence of the lack of confidence felt by many residents about the possible effects on health of such masts, great concern arose. I am pleased to say that, owing to a combination of effective lobbying by residents on issues affecting the amenity of the locality and other planning matters, and the diligence of my colleague Councillor Tony Wallace, that proposal was ultimately rejected by the relevant planning authority.
That application and concerns that have arisen from earlier cases led me to seek tonight's debate. While preparing my speech, I became aware that several other hon. Members have already raised these issues, but there are some relevant matters on which I should like the Minister to expand. In particular, I hope that he will be able to tell me what progress has been made in acting on the recommendations of the independent expert group on mobile phones, chaired by Sir William Stewart. In the last Session, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) tabled two early-day motions calling for the urgent implementation of the Stewart report's proposals. It would be helpful if the Minister spelled out the Government's response to that report and the timetable that is being followed for the delivery of the recommendatins.
As the Stewart report noted, the current privileged development rights of the telecommunications industry leave residents' anxieties outside the equation for evaluating the proposals. The timetable for the current system of prior approval leaves little time in many cases to do much more than pay lip service to public consultation. That lack of consultation feeds a lack of confidence in the safety of masts.
I welcome the Government's consultation on requiring all new telecommunications masts to be subject to full planning application procedure. Such a requirement would mean that the process would be subject to much


greater public scrutiny in future. When that consultation process ended, 301 responses had been received. My council wrote on 16 October, and I shall quote an extract from the letter:
In order to enable greater resident involvement the London Borough of Sutton fully supports the aim contained within the consultation paper of requiring telecommunications companies to submit planning applications for all mast proposals. In this way it will be possible to be inclusive and to ensure that representations can be obtained and if necessary they can be heard within a public forum. All too often at present the telescoped timetable does not enable residents to feel that their views art being fully considered. In particular as the prior approval format does not constitute a planning application it therefore cannot be considered under the same set of rules. This dual approach is both difficult to understand and very frustrating for residents. It is those residents who are most affected by the mast proposals.
I agree with those comments from the London borough of Sutton. Those anxieties have driven the questions that I tabled last year and my support for several early-day motions.
It would be useful to have the opportunity to review more of the responses to the Department's consultation. Unfortunately that has not been possible, despite an undertaking that was given by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes), in a written answer on 9 November to a parliamentary question from my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey). He asked when the responses would be published. The reply assured him:
Copies of all responses, other than those where the respondent has indicated that the response is to be treated as confidential, will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.—[Official Report, 9 November 2000; Vol. 356, c. 348W.]
The responses were not in the Library yesterday, however. Inquiries by Library staff to the parliamentary Clerk to the Department revealed that the responses were still being considered, and that, consequently, the Department had not released them to the Library. Why could not hon. Members see the responses until the Department had finished analysing them?
Given the changes that the new generation of personal communication networks will effect, have the Government assessed the number of new masts that will be required? Personal communication networks have a lower range and more masts will be required to achieve the same coverage as existing technology provides. Telecommunications companies have statutory licences from the Government and they will therefore be able to install equipment on the public highway. That right already exists. People are worried that there will be a proliferation of the columns that contain the masts and aerials.
One representation to the Department, by Kent county council, estimated that 100,000 new masts would be required to provide the new licensing arrangements. It would be useful if the Minister could say whether that was a fair estimate. If it is not, what constitutes a reasonable estimate in the Department's view?
Such expansion requires more than piecemeal development control and case-by-case consideration. Will the Government therefore accept the proposal of the Council for the Protection of Rural England that network operators should be obliged to consult local planning authorities on their plans for the whole network as it affects a specific locality? That would minimise the environmental impact.
Will the Government remove the permitted development rights for existing masts that have been approved under current prior approval arrangements? What monitoring arrangements are in place to ensure that the industry seriously considers the sharing of masts when possible and appropriate?
On planning guidance, can the Minister tell the House when it is intended to introduce the new planning requirements? When will they be in force?
Other questions are relevant to anxiety about the proliferation of masts. By dint of being statutory undertakers, telecommunications companies have the ability to exercise compulsory purchase order powers under an order by the Secretary of State. There is a possibility of CPOs being used to acquire land to allow such masts to be erected. If there is to be an increase in the number of bases required to secure the roll-out of the new licences and new technologies involved, what assessment has been made of the implications for a possible increase in the number of CPOs?
Finally, let me deal with an issue that is probably on the minds of many of my constituents and, I suspect, the minds of constituents of many other hon. Members. I refer to the debate about the public health effects of both ground stations and mobile phones. The Stewart report took the view that, according to the balance of the evidence, there was no general risk to the health of people near base stations; however, it accepted that there was evidence of subtle biological effects from radiation generated by such stations. Indeed, evidence collected for a report by the World Health Organisation suggests that low level doses have a cumulative effect on health.
As a result of the Stewart report, the Government have committed themselves to the precautionary approach recommended by the report, but that approach has tended to concentrate on phone use rather than bases. Of course it is welcome that more information and guidance is being provided, especially for children who may use mobile phones, but I understand that the leaflets that are meant to be provided with phones are not always provided by retailers when people buy them, and that there is thus no guarantee that the information is being conveyed.
In the United States, New Zealand and many European countries there are rules governing exclusion zones around base stations, which in some cases extend to 500 m. That was recommended by the Stewart report, but on my reading the Government have not acted on its recommendation to date. The Stewart report also recommended auditing:
We recommend that an independent, random, ongoing audit of all base stations be carried out to ensure that exposure guidelines are not exceeded outside the marked exclusion zone and that the base stations comply with their agreed specifications. If base station emissions are found to exceed guideline levels, or there is significant departure from the stated characteristics, then the base station should be decommissioned until compliance is demonstrated.
Can the Minister say when the programme will begin, and how many bases will be visited each year? Such audits could play an important part in restoring confidence in the safety of the technology.
My constituents and my local authority want all mast applications to be properly considered through the planning process, so that there is proper public debate and scrutiny. They also want to know that the bases are being audited, and that the expansion of the network—which


many of us will welcome, because it will provide access to the technology and allow better use of mobile phones and all the attendant communications aids—will not take place at the expense of the precautionary principle.

The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I congratulate the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Barstow) on securing the debate and giving the House an opportunity to discuss an important issue which, as he said, has caused concern not just in his constituency but far more widely.
The hon. Gentleman will, I hope, appreciate that because of the nature of the planning system, which enables cases to come to the Secretary of State on appeal, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on any individual cases. I shall therefore concentrate on the wider issues that he raised.
I confirm that our general policy on telecommunications development is to encourage and facilitate the rollout of a modern national telecommunications network, while at the same time protecting the environment. The Government are also responsible for protecting public health. In recent years, public concern about the possible health implications of mobile phone masts—and, indeed, handsets—has been increasing. I shall try to address both issues.
The Government take the health concerns extremely seriously, which is why in 1999 they asked their statutory adviser, the National Radiological Protection Board, to set up an independent expert group on mobile phones. Under the chairmanship of Sir William Stewart, the group considered concerns about the health effects of the use of mobile phones, base stations and transmitters. It conducted a rigorous and comprehensive assessment of existing research and gathered a wide range of views. I shall return to that matter.
The telecommunications sector is a vital part of the UK economy. It currently represents 3 per cent. of gross domestic product and network operators employ more than 213,000 people. There are more than 32 million telephone exchange lines and, in addition, some 30 million mobile phone subscribers. However, those figures do not tell the whole story. Telecommunications also provides a business backbone. Many industries are improving their routes to market through use of advanced telecommunications, the internet being a prime example. Business efficiency is also helped by such things as e-mail, short messaging services, mobile communications and video conferencing. The Government have as one of their core objectives making the UK the best place in the world to do business electronically by 2002.
The growth in the UK mobile communications sector over the past 15 years has been remarkable, and that growth is set to continue with the third generation of mobile telecommunications systems about to come on stream. A modern network brings a number of social and economic benefits, but the drive to develop the industry must be balanced against environmental objectives. The Government attach great importance to keeping to a minimum the environmental intrusion caused by telecoms network development. The land use planning system provides the tool to achieve that balance.
Licensed telecommunications code system operators are authorised by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, commonly referred to as the GPDO, to install specified telecommunications apparatus without needing to make a planning application to the local authority. However, our current planning framework includes well-established policies to protect the countryside and urban areas—in particular, our national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty, conservation areas and sites of special scientific interest. The installation of any telecommunications mast in such areas is subject to a requirement to submit a planning application. In addition, a planning application is required for the installation of any telecommunications mast in excess of 15 m in height, wherever it is to be sited.

Mr. Bob Russell: Does the Minister agree that many objections from residents result from the blank cheque planning permission granted by the previous Government? If the present Government amended the legislation to require planning permission to be sought for even the smallest mast, that would go a long way to appease residents such as those in St. John's ward in Colchester, who oppose such an application.

Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman anticipates a point that I shall come to in a moment. I assure him and the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam that I shall deal with it.
The GPDO approach nevertheless incorporates safeguards for other types of telecommunications development, including masts not exceeding 15 m in height. The main safe guard is provided through what is known as the prior approval procedure, which gives the local planning authority an opportunity to consider the siting and appearance of telecom masts.
The local planning authority has 28 days to carry out that process in respect of masts not exceeding 15 m in height on buildings or other structures. Following amendments to paragraph 24 of the GPDO in 1999, we extended that period to 42 days in respect of ground-based masts not exceeding 15 m in height and required the operator to erect a site notice to publicise the development proposed. Those amendments were introduced to provide the public with a clear opportunity to comment to the authority on the siting and appearance of ground-based masts.
Local planning authorities are strongly encouraged to undertake any additional publicity that they consider necessary to give people likely to be affected by the proposed development an opportunity to make their views known. Where the local authority considers that the proposed development would have a detrimental effect on local amenity, it is able to refuse approval. I have not completed my remarks on that subject, and shall come back to it later, so I hope that hon. Members will bear with me.
One concern often expressed is the proliferation of telecom masts. Indeed, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam specifically raised that issue. Planning policy guidance underlines the Government's view that the number of telecoms masts should be kept to the minimum consistent with an efficient network. Our policy is to encourage mast and site sharing, while recognising that it may not be the optimum environmental solution in every


case. A couple of slim and unobtrusive masts, for example, may well be better than one cluttered one. In general, however, the principle is to encourage mast-sharing and limit the number of new masts to the minimum consistent with the objective of establishing an efficient network created
Consideration of sharing is the starting point and conditions attached to individual operating licences granted by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry include a requirement to investigate mast sharing before seeking to put up any new mast.

Mr. Burstow: Given that a condition is attached to the licences, will the Minister tell the House whether or not the DTI has arrangements to monitor compliance with that condition to ensure that that happens?

Mr. Raynsford: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry: I am more than happy to discuss it with him and write to the hon. Gentleman. I shall come on to the important issue of the arrangements that we are making for monitoring in a moment.
The Government expect operators to provide evidence to the local planning authority that they have considered the use of existing masts, buildings or other structures before seeking to erect any new mast, regardless of size. With evidence on the suitability of alternative sites, the operator can discuss with the local planning authority, at an early stage, whether a shared mast would be the preferable solution for a particular development.
As well as base station location, sympathetic design has a key part to play in minim sing the impact of telecommunications development on the environment. The Government are keen to see operators working together to investigate the use of new technologies, materials and designs that will allow masts to complement or merge unobtrusively into their surroundings. The hon. Gentleman and many other hon. Members will know of imaginative approaches that have been adopted including, in one extreme case, an installation in Guildford cathedral concealed in the figure of an angel. Such possibilities will be appropriate and entirely satisfactory in some cases, but not, perhaps, in others. However, that area needs to be pursued.
We are sure that there is scope for further work to develop new and more sympathetic mast designs, drawing lessons from successful design, siting and landscaping solutions in this country and abroad. If operators can give local planning authorities and local people an idea of potential design solutions for particular sites, that will help to promote better dialogue and a collaborative approach to devising effective environmental solutions and help to make mast development more acceptable to the public.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister discuss with his colleagues in the DTI whether a procedure or guideline could be issued? An advertisement from suppliers or manufacturers could state what they wanted and what the network expected. In effect, it would ask for tenders from individuals who would conform with the design requirements and fit in with the local authority conditions. People would be interested in doing that because there

might be some commercial benefit. I know people who would welcome the opportunity to have a mast in an appropriate place, and would far rather that such a development was led by the landlord, rather than by an initiative on behalf of the mobile phone operator.

Mr. Raynsford: I hear and understand the point made by the hon. Gentleman. He will accept that the operator has to ensure that the location of the mast ensures that it is an appropriate complement to the rest of the network. Therefore, I would not wish to encourage too many initiatives of that nature from individuals who may be keen to have a mast in a location where they would probably receive some income for it, but where it is of no great benefit to the extension of the network or may not be ideal on amenity or health grounds. The hon. Gentleman has made a valid point, but there are limitations on how far the initiative can be taken for bodies other than the operators, who understand what is required to achieve the most efficient network.
As I mentioned earlier, we take very seriously public concerns about the possibility of health effects. The Stewart group published its report on 11 May last year. It concluded that
the balance of evidence to date does not suggest that emissions from mobile phones and base stations put the health of the UK population at risk.
The group also said, however, that it is not possible to say that exposure to radio-frequency radiation, even at levels below national guidelines, is totally without potential adverse health effects. It therefore recommended that a precautionary approach, comprising a series of specific measures, to the use of mobile-telephone technologies be adopted until more detailed and scientifically robust information on any health effects becomes available.
On mobile telephone base stations, the group's report concluded that
the balance of evidence indicates that there is no general risk to the health of people living near to base stations on the basis that exposures are expected to be small fractions of the guidelines. However, there can be indirect adverse effects on their well-being in some cases.

The Stewart report suggested that public consultation under the prior approval arrangement was not working satisfactorily, notwithstanding the improvements made in 1999. It also suggested that lack of public consultation was a major cause of grievance in people who suffered from loss of amenity when base stations were erected. It suggested that many people felt excluded and disempowered by the existing planning arrangements and that resulting frustration could also have a negative effect on people's health and well-being.
For those reasons, the group recommended that changes to the planning arrangements were necessary. Specifically, it recommended that
for all base stations, including those with masts under 15 m, permitted development rights for their erection be revoked and that the siting of all new base stations should be subject to the normal planning procedures.
In their initial response, published on 11 May, the Government welcomed the group's report and accepted many of its recommendations. In particular, the Government accepted the recommended precautionary approach as advised by the report.
I wrote to council leaders, in June 2000, setting out what is being done to take forward the planning recommendations, and reiterating how local planning authorities should continue to treat applications for mobile telephone development. Local planning authorities should continue to deal with planning applications for telecommunications on the basis of the current legislative arrangements and policy guidance.
The letter explained that, as part of its precautionary approach, the group's report did not recommend a ban or moratorium on the construction of mobile telephone masts and that we had no plans to introduce one. It made it clear that the Government's acceptance of a precautionary approach was limited to the specific recommendations in the group's report and the Government's response to them. The letter clearly stated that health considerations and public concern can in principle be material considerations in determining applications for planning permission and prior approval. It also said that it is for the decision maker—usually the local planning authority—to determine what weight to attach to such considerations in any particular case.
It is the Government's view that if a proposed development meets the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection guidelines—commonly known as the ICNIRP guidelines—as recommended by Stewart on a precautionary basis, it should not be necessary for a planning authority, in processing an application, to consider the health effects further. It does not mean that individual local authorities should introduce their own precautionary policies for determining applications for mobile telephone base stations. That would be a recipe for confusion and uncertainty.
Following preliminary discussions with the Local Government Association, other Departments and the mobile telephone industry, we issued a consultation paper, on 31 July, which sought views on whether any changes to planning legislation were necessary, and what those changes should be. In addition to asking questions about possible changes to the legislation, the consultation paper contained draft revised planning guidance.
Currently, guidance to local planning authorities is to be found in four separate places: PPG8; Circular 4/99—"Planning for Telecommunications"; the code of best practice on telecommunications prior approval procedures; and the drift circular on "Land Use Planning and Electromagnetic Fields", which was issued for consultation in December 1998.
The revised draft PPG8 is intended to rationalise, consolidate and update that range of guidance. A separate code of practice will be retained, but revised so that it reflects any changes to the planning arrangements for masts. The revised code will, we hope, be a joint document agreed by Government, local authorities and the industry, as the present one is.
As part of the revised PPG8, we will give advice on how to take into account health concerns, including the advice that health considerations and public concern can in principle be material considerations in determining applications, as explained earlier. Our draft revised guidance suggests, among other things, that operators should include with their applications a statement that the apparatus will meet the ICNIRP guidelines if and when it is up and running.
The consultation period ended on 31 October. Approximately 365 responses were received—rather more than the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam heard about. We are currently analysing them and will announce any changes as soon as is practicable. I will arrange for the responses to be placed in the Library as soon as possible. I noted his comment on that. I cannot give him a date when the conclusions will be announced, but we are working on this as a matter of priority.
We are also working on an audit of base stations—the hon. Gentleman asked about that—and have in hand a number of other measures. As my time is running out, I will write to him on the other issues that he has raised, and I assure him of our commitment to finding a way forward that meets our twin objectives of allowing the system to roll out satisfactorily so as to ensure the extension of telecommunications while at the same time taking into account the environmental and health concerns that have been expressed by the public.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Eleven o'clock.

Deferred Divisions

SPORT

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. COM(99)643, a Commission Communication entitled 'Community Support Plan to Combat Doping in Sport', European Union Document No. COM(99)644, the Helsinki Report on Sport and the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum dated 23rd November 2000, submitted by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport relating to the Declaration on Sport; considers that the special nature and role of sport should be recognised in applying Community rules to sporting activity; and supports the Government's intention to ensure that Europe is effectively represented in the deliberations of the World Anti-Doping Agency.
The House divided: Ayes 318, Noes 5.

Division No. 79]



AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clapham, Michael


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Ainger, Nick
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Clelland, David


Allan, Richard
Coffey, Ms Ann


Allen, Graham
Coleman, Iain


Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)
Colman, Tony



Connany, Michael


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Cooper, Yvette


Atkins, Charlotte
Corbett, Robin


Bailey, Adrian
Corbyn, Jeremy


Ballard, Jackie
Cousins, Jim


Banks, Tony
Crausby, David


Barron, Kevin
Cummings, John


Bayley, Hugh
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Beard, Nigel
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Darvill, Keith


Begg, Miss Anne
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Davidson, Ian


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Dawson, Hilton


Bennett, Andrew F
Dean, Mrs Janet


Benton, Joe
Denham, John


Bermingham, Gerald
Dismore, Andrew


Berry, Roger
Dobbin, Jim


Betts, Clive
Donohoe, Brian H


Blackman, Liz
Doran, Frank


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Dowd, Jim


Blears, Ms Hazel
Drew, David


Blizzard, Bob
Drown, Ms Julia


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Borrow, David
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Edwards, Huw


Bradshaw, Ben
Efford, Clive


Brand, Dr Peter
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Breed, Colin
Ennis, Jeff


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Fearn, Ronnie


Burden, Richard
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Burnett, John
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna


Burstow, Paul
Flight, Howard


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Flint, Caroline


Cable, Dr Vincent
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Foster, Don (Bath)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)



Galloway, George


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Gapes, Mike


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Gardiner, Barry


Caplin, Ivor
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Casale, Roger
Gibson, Dr Ian


Caton, Martin
Gidley, Sandra


Cawsey, Ian
Gilroy, Mrs Linda





Godsiff, Roger
McAvoy, Thomas


Goggins, Paul
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Golding, Mrs Llin
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)



Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McCrea, Dr William


Grocott, Bruce
Macdonald, Calum


Grogan, John
McDonnell, John


Gummer, Rt Hon John
McFall, John


Hain, Peter
McGrady, Eddie


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
McIsaac, Shona


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Hanson, David
McNulty, Tony


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
MacShane, Denis


Harris, Dr Evan
Mactaggart, Fiona



Harvey, Nick
McWalter, Tony


Healey, John
McWilliam, John


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Mallaber, Judy


Hendrick, Mark
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hepburn, Stephen
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hesford, Stephen
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Maxton, John


Hill, Keith
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Merron, Gillian


Hoey, Kate
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hope, Phil
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Hopkins, Kelvin
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)
Miller, Andrew


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Mitchell, Austin


Howells, Dr Kim
Moffatt, Laura


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Moore, Michael


Humble, Mrs Joan
Moran, Ms Margaret



Hunter, Andrew
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hutton, John
Morley, Elliot


Iddon, Dr Brian
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Illsley, Eric



Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Mountford, Kali


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Mudie, George


Jamieson, David
Mullin, Chris


Jenkins, Brian
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Norris, Dan



Oaten, Mark


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Olner, Bill


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
O'Neill, Martin


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Öpik, Lembit


Joyce, Eric
Palmer, Dr Nick


Keeble, Ms Sally
Pearson, Ian


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Pickthall, Colin


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Pike, Peter L


Keetch, Paul
Pond, Chris


Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)
Pope, Greg



Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Khabra, Piara S
Primarolo, Dawn


Kidney, David
Prosser, Gwyn


Kilfoyle, Peter
Purchase, Ken


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Quinn, Lawrie


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Rammell, Bill


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Raynsford, Nick


Lammy, David
Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie



Lepper, David
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Leslie, Christopher
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Levitt, Tom
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Rooney, Terry


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Rowlands, Ted


Linton, Martin
Roy, Frank


Lock, David
Ruane, Chris


Love, Andrew
Ruddock, Joan






Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Sanders, Adrian
Timms, Stephen


Sarwar, Mohammad
Todd, Mark


Sawford, Phil
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Shaw, Jonathan
Touhig, Don


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Trickett, Jon



Short, Rt Hon Clare
Truswell, Paul


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Skinner, Dennis
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Tyler, Paul


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Tynan, Bill


Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns)
Watts, David


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Webb, Steve


Southworth, Ms Helen
White, Brian


Spellar, John
Wicks, Malcolm


Spicer, Sir Michael
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Squire, Ms Rachel
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Steinberg, Gerry
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Wills, Michael


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Wilson, Brian


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Winnick, David


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Wood, Mike


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Woolas, Phil


Stunell, Andrew
Worthington, Tony


Sutclifte, Gerry
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Wyatt, Derek


Temple-Morris, Peter



NOES


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Shepherd, Richard

Question accordingly agreed to.

LEGAL AID AND ADVICE

That the draft Legal Advice and Assistance (Scope) (Amendment) Regulations 2001, which were laid before this House on 11th December, be approved.
The House divided: Ayes 427, Noes 4.

Division No. 80]



AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Beith, Rt Hon AJ


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Bell, Martin (Tatton)


Ainger, Nick
Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Bennett, Andrew F


Allan, Richard
Benton, Joe


Allen, Graham
Bercow, John


Amess, David
Beresford, Sir Paul


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Bermingham, Gerald


Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)
Berry, Roger



Betts, Clive


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Blackman, Liz


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Blair, Rt Hon Tony


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Blears, Ms Hazel


Atherton, Ms Candy
Blizzard, Bob


Atkins, Charlotte
Blunkett, Rt Hon David


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Blunt, Crispin


Bailey, Adrian
Borrow, David


Baldry, Tony
Boswell, Tim


Ballard, Jackie
Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia


Banks, Tony
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Barron, Kevin
Bradshaw, Ben


Bayley, Hugh
Brand, Dr Peter


Beard, Nigel
Brazier, Julian


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Breed, Colin


Begg, Miss Anne
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)





Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna


Browning, Mrs Angela
Flight, Howard


Burden, Richard
Flint, Caroline


Burnett, John
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Burns, Simon
Foster, Don (Bath)


Burstow, Paul
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Butterfill, John
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Fox, Dr Liam


Cable, Dr Vincent
Fraser, Christopher


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Gale, Roger


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Galloway, George


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Gapes, Mike



Gardiner, Barry


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Garnier, Edward


Campbell-Savours, Dale
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Caplin, Ivor
Gibson, Dr Ian


Casale, Roger
Gidley, Sandra


Caton, Martin
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Cawsey, Ian
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Chope, Christopher
Godsiff, Roger


Clapham, Michael
Goggins, Paul


Clappison, James
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Gray, James


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Green, Damian


Clelland, David
Greenway, John


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Coffey, Ms Ann
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Coleman, Iain
Grocott, Bruce


Collins, Tim
Grogan, John


Colman, Tony
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Connarty, Michael
Hain, Peter


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Cooper, Yvette
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Corbett, Robin
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hammond, Philip


Cousins, Jim
Hanson, David


Cran, James
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Crausby, David
Harris, Dr Evan


Cummings, John
Harvey, Nick


Curry, Rt Hon David
Hawkins, Nick


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Heald, Oliver


Darting, Rt Hon Alistair
Healey, John


Darvill, Keith
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Davidson, Ian
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Hendrick, Mark


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Hepburn, Stephen


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Hesford, Stephen


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Dawson, Hilton
Hill, Keith


Day, Stephen
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Dean, Mrs Janet
Hoey, Kate


Denham, John
Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Dismore, Andrew
Hope, Phil


Dobbin, Jim
Hopkins, Kelvin


Donohoe, Brian H
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Doran, Frank
Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)


Dowd, Jim
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Drew, David
Howells, Dr Kim


Drown, Ms Julia
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Duncan, Alan
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Duncan Smith, Iain
Humble, Mrs Joan



Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Hutton, John


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Iddon, Dr Brian


Edwards, Huw
Illsley, Eric


Efford, Clive
Ingram, Rt Hon Adam


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Ennis, Jeff
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Evans, Nigel
Jamieson, David


Fabricant, Michael
Jenkins, Brian


Fallon, Michael
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Fearn, Ronnie
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Fitzpatrick, Jim







Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)



Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Miller, Andrew


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Mitchell, Austin


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Moffatt, Laura


Joyce, Eric
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Keeble, Ms Sally
Moore, Michael


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Moran, Ms Margaret


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Keetch, Paul
Morley, Elliot


Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Mountford, Kali


Key, Robert
Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie


Khabra, Piara S
Mudie, George


Kidney, David
Mullin, Chris


Kilfoyle, Peter
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Wrkbride, Miss Julie
Norman, Archie


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Norris, Dan


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Oaten, Mark


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Lammy, David
Olner, Bill


Lansley, Andrew
O'Neill, Martin


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Öpik, Lembit


Leigh, Edward
Ottaway, Richard


Lepper, David
Page, Richard


Leslie, Christopher
Paice, James


Letwin, Oliver
Palmer, Dr Nick


Levitt, Tom
Pearson, Ian


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Pickles, Eric


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Pickthali, Colin


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Pike, Peter L


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Pond, Chris


Lidington, David
Pope, Greg


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Linton, Martin
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Lock, David
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Love, Andrew
Primarolo, Dawn


Luff, Peter
Prior, David


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Prosser, Gwyn


McAvoy, Thomas
Purchase, Ken


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Quinn, Lawrie


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Rammel, Bill



Randall, John


Macdonald, Calum
Raynsford, Nick


McDonnell, John
Redwood, Rt Hon John


McFall, John
Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)


McGrady, Eddie



MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


McIsaac, Shona
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Mackinlay, Andrew
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


McLoughlin, Patrick
Rooney, Terry


McNulty, Tony
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


MacShane, Denis
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Mactaggart, Fiona
Rowlands, Ted


McWalter, Tony
Roy, Frank


McWilliam, John
Ruane, Chris


Madel, Sir David
Ruddoct, Joan


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Ruffley, David


Mallaber, Judy
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Maples, John
St Aubyn, Nick


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Sanders, Adrian


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Sarwar, Mohammad


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Sawford, Phil


Mates, Michael
Sayeed, Jonathan


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Shaw, Jonathan


Maxton, John
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


May, Mrs Theresa
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Shepherd, Richard


Merron, Gillian
Short, Rt Hon Clare


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)





Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Tredinnick, David


Skinner, Dennis
Trend, Michael


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Trickett, Jon


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Truswell, Paul


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns)
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Soames, Nicholas
Tyler, Paul


Southworth, Ms Helen
Tynan, Bill


Spellar, John
Tyrie, Andrew


Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Viggers, Peter


Spicer, Sir Michael
Walter, Robert


Spring, Richard
Waterson, Nigel


Squire, Ms Rachel
Watts, David


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Webb, Steve


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Wells, Bowen


Steinberg, Gerry
White, Brian


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Whittingdale, John


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Wicks, Malcolm


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Streeter, Gary
Willetts, David


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Stunell, Andrew



Sutcliffe, Gerry
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Swayne, Desmond
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Syms, Robert
Wills, Michael


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Wilson, Brian


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Winnick, David


Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Wood, Mike


Taylor, Sir Teddy
Woolas, Phil


Temple-Morris, Peter
Worthington, Tony


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Timms, Stephen
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Todd, Mark
Wyatt, Derek


Tonge, Dr Jenny
Yeo, Tim


Touhig, Don
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


NOES


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
McCrea, Dr William


Hunter, Andrew
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

Question accordingly agreed to.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

That the draft Local Government Best Value (Exclusion of Non-commercial Considerations) Order, which was laid before this House on 12th December, be approved.
The House divided: Ayes 426, Noes 7.

Division No. 81]



AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Ballard, Jackie


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Banks, Tony


Ainger, Nick
Barron, Kevin


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Bayley, Hugh


Ainsworth, Robert (CoV'try NE)
Beard, Nigel


Allan, Richard
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret


Allen, Graham
Begg, Miss Anne


Arness, David
Beith, Rt Hon A J


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Bell, Martin (Tatton)


Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)
Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)



Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Bennett, Andrew F


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Benton, Joe


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Bercow, John


Atherton, Ms Candy
Beresford, Sir Paul


Atkins, Charlotte
Bermingham, Gerald


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Berry, Roger


Bailey, Adrian
Betts, Clive


Baldry, Tony
Blackman, Liz






Blair,Rt Hon Tony
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Blears, Ms Hazel
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Blizzard, Bob
Edwards, Huw


Bunkett, Rt Hon David
Efford, Clive


Blunt, Crispin
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Borrow, David
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Boswell, Tim
Ennis, Jeff


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Evans, Nigel


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Fabricant, Michael


Bradshaw, Ben
Fallon, Michael


Brand, Dr Peter
Fearn, Ronnie


Brazier, Julian
Ftepatrick, Jim


Breed, Colin
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Flight, Howard


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Flint, Caroline


Burden, Richard
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Burnett, John
Foster, Don (Bath)


Burns, Simon
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Burstow, Paul
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Buttertill, John
Fox, Dr Liam


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Fraser, Christopher


Cable, Dr Vincent
Gale, Roger


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Galloway, George


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Gapes, Mike


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies
Gardiner, Barry


(NE Fife)
Garnier, Edward


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Gibson, Dr Ian


Caplin, Ivor
Gidley, Sandra


Casale, Roger
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Caton, Martin
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Cawsey, Ian
Godsiff, Roger


Clapham, Michael
Goggins, Paul


Clappison, James
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Gray, James


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Green, Damian


Clelland, David
Greenway, John


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Coffey, Ms Ann
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Coleman, Iain
Grocott, Bruce


Collins, Tim
Grogan, John


Colman, Tony
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Connarty, Michael
Hain, Peter


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Cooper, Yvette
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Corbett, Robin
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hammond, Philip


Cousins, Jim
Hanson, David


Cran, James
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Crausby, David
Harris, Dr Evan


Cummings, John
Harvey, Nick


Curry, Rt Hon David
Hawkins, Nick


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Heald, Oliver


Darting, Rt Hon Alistair
Healey, John


Darvill, Keith
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Davidson, Ian
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Lianelli)
Hendrick, Mark


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Hepburn, Stephen


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Hesford, Stephen


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Dawson, Hilton
Hill, Keith


Day, Stephen
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Dean, Mrs Janet
Hoey, Kate


Denham, John
Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Dismore, Andrew
Hope, Phil


Dobbin, Jim
Hopkins, Kelvin


Donohoe, Brian H
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Doran, Frank
Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)


Dowd, Jim
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Drew, David
Howells, Dr Kim


Drown, Ms Julia
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Duncan, Alan
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Duncan Smith, Iain
Humble, Mrs Joan





Hutton, John
Mallaber, Judy


Iddon, Dr Brian
Maples, John


Illsley, Eric
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Mates, Michael


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Jarnieson, David
Maxton, John


Jenkins, Brian
May, Mrs Theresa


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Merron, Gillian



Michael, Rt Hon Alun



Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)



Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Miller, Andrew


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Mitchell, Austin


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Moffatt, Laura


Joyce, Eric
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Keeble, Ms Sally
Moore, Michael


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Moran, Ms Margaret


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Keetch, Paul
Morley, Elliot


Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Mountford, Kali


Key, Robert
Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie


Khabra, Piara S
Mudie, George


Kidney, David
Mullin, Chris


Kilfoyle, Peter
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Norman, Archie


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Norris, Dan


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Oaten, Mark


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Lammy, David
Olner, Bill


Lansley, Andrew
O'Neill, Martin


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Öpik, Lembit


Leigh, Edward
Ottaway, Richard


Lepper, David
Page, Richard


Leslie, Christopher
Paice, James


Letwin, Oliver
Palmer, Dr Nick


Levitt, Tom
Pearson, Ian


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Pickles, Eric


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Pickthall, Colin


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Pike, Peter L


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Pond, Chris


Lidington, David
Pope, Greg


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Linton, Martin
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Lock, David
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Love, Andrew
Primarolo, Dawn


Luff, Peter
Prior, David


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Prosser, Gwyn


McAvoy, Thomas
Purchase, Ken


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Quinn, Lawrie


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Rammell, Bill



Randall, John


Macdonald, Calum
Raynsford, Nick


McDonnell, John
Redwood, Rt Hon John


McFall, John
Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)


McGrady, Eddie



MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


McIsaac, Shona
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Mackinlay, Andrew
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


McLoughlin, Patrick
Rooney, Terry


McNulty, Tony
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


MacShane, Denis
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Mactaggart, Fiona
Rowlands, Ted


McWalter, Tony
Roy, Frank


McWilliam, John
Ruane, Chris


Madel, Sir David
Ruddock, Joan


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Ruffley, David






Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Temple-Morris, Peter


St Aubyn, Nick
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Sanders, Adrian
Timms, Stephen


Sarwar, Mohammad
Todd, Mark


Sawford, Phil
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Sayeed, Jonathan
Touhig, Don


Shaw, Jonathan
Tredinnick, David


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Trend, Michael


Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Trickett, Jon


Shepherd, Richard
Truswell, Paul


Short, Rt Hon Clare
Turner, Dennis (Wdverh''ton SE)


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Skinner, Dennis
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Tyler, Paul


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Tynan, Bill


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Tyrie, Andrew


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Viggers, Peter


Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns)
Walter, Robert


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Waterson, Nigel


Soarnes, Nicholas
Watts, David


Sothworth, Ms Helan
Webb, Steve


Spellar, John
Wells, Bowen


Spelman, Mrs Caroline
White, Brian


Spicer, Sir Michael
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Spring, Richard
Whittingdale, John


Squire, Ms Rachel
WICKS, Malcolm


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann



Willetts, David


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Steinberg, Gerry



Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Willis, Phil


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Wills, Mchael


Streeter, Gary
Wilson, Brian


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Winnick, David


Stunell, Andrew
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Swayne, Desmond
Wood, Mike


Syms, Robert
Woolas, Phil


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Worthington, Tony


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Wyatt, Derek


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Yeo, Tim


Taylor, Sir Teddy
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


NOES


Browning, Mrs Angela
Hunter, Andrew


Chope, Christopher
McCrea, Dr William


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

Question accordingly agreed to.

PREVENTION AND SUPPRESSION OF TERRORISM

That the draft Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission (Procedure Rules 2001, which were laid before this House on 13th December, be approved.
The House divided: Ayes 433, Noes 1.

Division No. 82]



AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)



Ainger, Nick
Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy


Allan, Richard
Atherton, Ms Candy


Allen, Graham
Atkins, Charlotte


Amess, David
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Bailey, Adrian





Baldry, Tony
Curry, Rt Hon David


Ballard, Jackie
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Banks, Tony
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Barron, Kevin
Darvill, Keith


Bayley, Hugh
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Beard, Nigel
Davidson, Ian


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Lianelli)


Begg, Miss Anne
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Dawson, Hilton


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Day, Stephen


Bennett, Andrew F
Dean, Mrs Janet


Benton, Joe
Denham, John


Bercow, John
Dismore, Andrew


Beresford, Sir Paul
Dobbin, Jim


Bermingham, Gerald
Donohoe, Brian H


Berry, Roger
Doran, Frank


Betts, Clive
Dowd, Jim


Blackman, Liz
Drew, David


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Drown, Ms Julia


Blears, Ms Hazel
Duncan, Alan


Blizzard, Bob
Duncan Smith, Iain


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Blunt, Crispin
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Borrow, David
Edwards, Huw


Boswell, Tim
Efford, Clive


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter



Bradshaw, Ben
Ennis, Jeff


Brand, Dr Peter
Evans, Nigel


Brazier, Julian
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Breed, Colin
Fabricant, Michael


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Fallon, Michael


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Fearn, Ronnie


Browning, Mrs Angela
Frtzpatrick, Jim


Burden, Richard
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna


Burnett, John
Right, Howard


Burns, Simon
Flint, Caroline


Burstow, Paul
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Butterfill, John
Foster, Don (Bath)


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Cable, Dr Vincent
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Fox, Dr Liam


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Fraser, Christopher


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Gale, Roger



Galloway, George


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Gapes, Mike


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Gardiner, Barry


Caplin, Ivor
Garnier, Edward


Casale, Roger
George, Andrew (St lves)


Caton, Martin
Gibson, Dr Ian


Cawsey, Ian
Gidley, Sandra


Chope, Christopher
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Clapham, Michael
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Clappison, James
Godsiff, Roger


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Goggins, Paul


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Clelland, David
Gray, James


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Green, Damian


Coffey, Ms Ann
Greenway, John


Coleman, Iain
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Collins, Tim
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Colman, Tony
Grocott, Bruce


Connarty, Michael
Grogan, John


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)
Hain, Peter


Cooper, Yvette
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Corbett, Robin
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Cousins, Jim
Hammond, Philip


Cran, James
Hanson, David


Crausby, David
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Cummings, John
Harris, Dr Evan






Harvey, Nick
Lock, David


Hawkins, Nick
Love, Andrew


Heald, Oliver
Luff, Peter


Healey, John
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Heath, David (Somerton & Frame)
McAvoy, Thomas


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


Hendrick, Mark



Hepburn, Stephen
McCrea, Dr William


Hesford, Stephen
Macdonald, Calum


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
McDonnell, John


Hill, Keith
McFall, John


Hodge, Ms Margaret
McGrady, Eddie


Hoey, Kate
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
McIsaac, Shona


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Hope, Phil
Mackinlay, Andrew


Hopkins, Kelvin
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
McLoughlin, Patrick


Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)
McNulty, Tony


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
MacShane, Denis


Howells, Dr Kim
Mactaggart, Fiona


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
McWalter, Tony


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
McWilliam, John


Humble, Mrs Joan
Madel, Sir David


Hutton, John
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Iddon, Dr Brian
Mallaber, Judy


Illsley, Eric
Maples, John


Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Mates, Michael


Jamieson, David
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Jenkins, Brian
Maxton, John


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
May, Mrs Theresa


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael



Merron, Gillian


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Michael, Rt Hon Alun



Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Miller, Andrew


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Mitchell, Austin


Joyce, Eric
Moffatt, Laura


Keeble, Ms Sally
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Moore, Michael


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Moran, Ms Margaret


Keetch, Paul
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)
Morley, Elliot



Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)



Key, Robert
Mountford, Kali


Khabra, Piara S
Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie


Kidney, David
Mudie, George


Kilfoyle, Peter
Mullin, Chris


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Norman, Archie


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Norris, Dan


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Oaten, Mark


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Lammy, David
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Lansley, Andrew
Olner, Bill


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
O'Neill, Martin


Leigh, Edward
Öpik, Lembit


Lepper, David
Ottaway, Richard


Leslie, Christopher
Page, Richard


Letwin, Oliver
Paice, James


Levitt, Tom
Palmer, Dr Nick


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Pearson, Ian


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Pickles, Eric


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Pickthall, Colin


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Pike, Peter L


Lidington, David
Pond, Chris


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Pope, Greg


Linton, Martin
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael





Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Streeter, Gary


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Primarolo, Dawn
Stunell, Andrew


Prior, David
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Prosser, Gwyn
Swayne, Desmond


Purchase, Ken
Syms, Robert


Quinn, Lawrie
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Rammell, Bill
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Randall, John
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Raynsford, Nick
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)
Taylor, Sir Teddy



Temple-Morris, Peter


Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Timms, Stephen


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Todd, Mark


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Touhig, Don


Rooney, Terry
Tredinnick, David


Ross, Emnie (Dundee W)
Trend, Michael


Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Trickett, Jon


Rowlands, Ted
Truswell, Paul


Roy, Frank
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Ruane, Chris
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Ruddock, Joan
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Ruffley, David
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Tyler, Paul


St Aubyn, Nick
Tynan, Bill


Sanders, Adrian
Tyrie, Andrew


Sarwar, Mohammad
Viggers, Peter


Sawford, Phil
Walter, Robert


Sayeed, Jonathan
Waterson, Nigel


Shaw, Jonathan
Watts, David


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Webb, Steve


Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Wells, Bowen


Shepherd, Richard
White, Brian


Short, Rt Hon Clare
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Whittingdale, John


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Wicks, Malcolm


Skinner, Dennis
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Willetts, David


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)



Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Soames, Nicholas
Willis, Phil


Southworth, Ms Helen
Wills, Michael


Spellar, John
Wilson, Brian


Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Winnick, David


Spicer, Sir Michael
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Spring, Richard
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Squire, Ms Rachel
Wood, Mike


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Woolas, Phil


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Worthington, Tony


Steinberg, Gerry
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Wyatt, Derek


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Yeo, Tim


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


NOES


Hunter, Andrew

Question accordingly agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (The Convention on Mutual Assistance and Co-operation between Customs Administrations (Naples II)) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 14th December, be approved.
The House divided: Ayes 425, Noes 8

Division No. 83]



AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Ainger, Nick
Clelland, David


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Clifton- Brown, Geoffrey


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Coffey, Ms Ann


Allan, Richard
Coleman, Iain


Allen, Graham
Collins, Tim


Amess, David
Colman, Tony


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Connary, Michael


Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)



Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Cooper, Yvette


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Corbett, Robin


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Corbyn, Jeremy


Atherton, Ms Candy
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Atkins, Charlotte
Cousins, Jim


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Cran, James


Bailey, Adrian
Crausby, David


Baldry, Tony
Cummings, John


Ballard, Jackie
Curry, Rt Hon David


Banks, Tony
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Barron, Kevin
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Bayley, Hugh
Darvill, Keith


Beard, Nigel
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Davidson, Ian


Begg, Miss Anne
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Dawson, Hilton


Bennett, Andrew F
Day, Stephen


Benton, Joe
Dean, Mrs Janet


Bercow, John
Denham, John


Beresford, Sir Paul
Dismore, Andrew


Bermingham, Gerald
Dobbin, Jim


Berry, Roger
Donohoe, Brian H


Betts, Clive
Doran, Frank


Blackman, Liz
Dowd, Jim


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Drew, David


Blears, Ms Hazel
Drown, Ms Julia


Blizzard, Bob
Duncan, Alan


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Blunt, Crispin
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Borrow, David
Edwards, Huw


Boswell, Tim
Efford, Clive


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Bradshaw, Ben
Ennis, Jeff


Brand, Dr Peter
Evans, Nigel


Brazier, Julian
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Breed, Colin
Fabricant, Michael


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Fallon, Michael


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Fearn, Ronnie


Burden, Richard
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Burnett, John
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna


Burns, Simon
Flight, Howard


Burstow, Paul
Flint, Caroline


Butterfill, John
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Foster, Don (Bath)


Cable, Dr Vincent
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Fox, Dr Liam


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Fraser, Christopher




Gale, Roger


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Galloway, George


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Gapes, Mike


Caplin, Ivor
Gardiner, Barry


Casale, Roger
Garnier, Edward


Caton, Martin
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Cawsey, Ian
Gibson, Dr Ian


Chope, Christopher
Gidley, Sandra


Clapham, Michael
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Clappison, James
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Godsiff, Roger





Goggins, Paul
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Golding, Mrs Llin
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Gray, James
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Green, Damian
Lammy, David


Greenway, John
Lansley, Andrew


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Leigh, Edward


Grocott, Bruce
Lepper, David


Grogan, John
Leslie, Christopher


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Letwin, Oliver


Hain, Peter
Levitt, Tom


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Hammond, Philip
Lidington, David



Hanson, David
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Linton, Martin


Harris, Dr Evan
Lock, David


Harvey, Nick
Love, Andrew


Hawkins, Nick
Luff, Peter


Heald, Oliver
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Healey, John
McAvoy, Thomas


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)



Hendrick, Mark
Macdonald, Calum


Hepburn, Stephen
McDonnell, John


Hesford, Stephen
McFall, John


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
McGrady, Eddie


Hill, Keith
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Hodge, Ms Margaret
McIsaac, Shona


Hoey, Kate
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Mackinlay, Andrew


Hope, Phil
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Hopkins, Kelvin
McLoughlin, Patrick


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
McNulty, Tony


Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)
MacShane, Denis


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Mactaggart, Fiona


Howells, Dr Kim
McWalter, Tony


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
McWilliam, John


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Madel, Sir David


Humble, Mrs Joan
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Hutton, John
Mallaber, Judy


Iddon, Dr Brian
Maples, John


Illsley, Eric
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Mates, Michael


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Jamieson, David
Maxton, John


Jenkins, Brian
May, Mrs Theresa


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Merron, Gillian



Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)



Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)



Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Miller, Andrew


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Mitchell, Austin



Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Moffatt, Laura


Joyce, Eric
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Keeble, Ms Sally
Moore, Michael


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Moran, Ms Margaret


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Keetch, Paul
Morley, Elliot


Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)






Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Mountford, Kali


Key, Robert
Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie


Khabra, Piara S
Mudie, George


Kidney, David
Mullin, Chris


Kilfoyle, Peter
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Norman, Archie






Norrs, Dan
Rowlands, Ted


Oaten, Mark
Roy, Frank


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Ruane, Chris


O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Ruddock, Joan


Olner, Bill
Ruffley, David


O'Neill, Martin
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Öpik, Lembit
St Aubyn, Nick


Ottaway, Richard
Sanders, Adrian


Page, Richard
Sarwar, Mohammad


Paice, James
Sawford, Phil


Palmer, Dr Nick
Sayeed, Jonathan


Pearson, Ian
Shaw, Jonathan


Pickles, Eric
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Pickthall, Colin
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Pike, Peter L
Short, Rt Hon Clare


Pond, Chris
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Pope, Greg
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Skinner, Dennis


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Primarolo, Dawn
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Prior, David
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Prosser, Gwyn
Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns)


Purchase, Ken
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Quinn, Lawrie
Soames, Nicholas


Rammell, Bill
Southworth, Ms Helen


Randall, John
Spellar, John


Raynsford, Nick
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)
Spicer, Sir Michael



Spring, Richard


Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Squire, Ms Rachel


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Steinberg, Gerry


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Stewart, David (Invernness E)


Rooney, Terry
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Straw, Rt Hon Jack





Streeter, Gary
Walter, Robert


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Waterson, Nigel


Stunell, Andrew
Watts, David



Sutcliffe, Gerry
Webb, Steve


Swayne, Desmond
Wells, Bowen


Syms, Robert
White, Brian


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Whitney, Sir Raymond



Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Whittingdale, John


Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Wicks, Malcolm


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Temple-Morris, Peter
Willetts, David


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Timms, Stephen



Todd, Mark
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Tonge, Dr Jenny
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Touhig, Don
Willis, Phil


Tredinnick, David
Wills, Michael


Trend, Michael
Wilson, Brian


Trickett, Jon
Winnick, David


Truswell, Paul
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Wood, Mike


Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Woolas, Phil


Turner, Neil (Wigan)
Worthington, Tony


Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Tyler, Paul
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Tynan, Bill
Wyatt, Derek


Tyrie, Andrew
Yeo, Tim


Viggers, Peter
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


NOES


Browning, Mrs Angela
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Shepherd, Richard


Hunter, Andrew
Taylor, Sir Teddy


McCrea, Dr William
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Question accordingly agreed to.